TBG Open Door Limited (202451000)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451000

London Borough of Barnet

16 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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 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 investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat with a communal garden the landlord owns and manages. It let the property to her under a fixed-term, affordable rent tenancy agreement in September 2020. The landlord records the resident’s son has a neurogenetic disorder and requires support.
4. The resident reported ASB from a neighbour to the landlord since 2021. The landlord’s handling of her ASB reports was the subject of her complaints.
5. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 November 2024 and sent a stage 1 complaint response to her on 15 November 2024. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the time it had taken to address the ASB. It also said:
   1. It was gathering evidence to proceed legally but there were some complex challenges it could not share due to data protection.
   2. The resident should report criminal matters like drug use, threatening behaviour, and an aggressive dog to the police in the first instance.
   3. It would remove dumped furniture, clean the area, and contact the police about her neighbours’ arrest.
   4. It recognised a relationship breakdown between the neighbours and offered the resident mediation because it had not previously offered this.
6. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2024. She said its offer of mediation was offensive and showed a lack of professionalism and empathy as she had reported ASB, harassment, verbal abuse, and damage to her private possessions for 3 years. She said its lack of action meant it intentionally subjected residents to suffering and it housed her with full knowledge of her neighbour’s ASB. Further, that it had discriminated against her family, ignored everything, and robbed her of the right to peaceful home which caused her trauma.
7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 November 2024 and sent its final complaint response on 30 December 2024 which it upheld. It also said:
   1. It appreciated the situation had been difficult for the resident and her neighbours. Its offer of mediation was not meant to offend her.
   2. It had to make reasonable adjustments, and the case was taking longer than it would have liked.
   3. It was sorry her neighbour continued to cause distress. It was working with multiple agencies, but it could not share confidential information.
   4. It did not agree with the resident’s view that it knowingly housed residents where it knew another resident caused ASB.
   5. It could not find a record to confirm it refused permission for her to train a dog. It would consider this request if she sent it in writing. It sent a dangerous dog warning to her neighbour with advice about caring for animals.
8. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said to put matters right the landlord should pay compensation for the impact of ASB on her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, but we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a claim she should get independent legal advice.
10. In the resident’s complaint she has referred to historical reports of ASB going back to 2021. This assessment looks at the landlord’s actions in responding to the issues in the resident’s formal complaint of 17 October 2024 from around 12 months prior to that complaint onwards. The historical issues provide useful contextual background to the complaint.
11. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint she said the landlord discriminated against her. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment. We cannot decide whether the landlord has broken the Equality Act 2010. This is a legal determination only a court can decide. This investigation will look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and her complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB. If the resident considers the landlord discriminated against her family she may seek independent legal advice.

ASB

12. Our role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. We also considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
13. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says residents must make sure they keep their homes, gardens, and driveways in a good condition in line with their tenancy agreement. They must not engage in ASB, nuisance, or other behaviour that could cause annoyance to neighbours. They must keep pets under control, clean up any dog waste, and dispose of all unwanted items responsibly in bins and storage areas.
14. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy says it will keep residents informed, in consideration of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. The landlord could not share all information about the measures it took due to confidentiality obligations it has to the resident’s neighbour. We must also protect confidential information. We reviewed the landlord’s ASB case management, internal emails, communication with external agencies, and its partnership working practices. Our determination is based on our assessment of this confidential information, but we cannot include all the findings in this report.
15. In May 2023 the resident told the landlord her neighbour had serious mental health issues, shouted vulgar words, and was smoking drugs. The landlord recommended she report this to the police because it was a criminal offence. This was in keeping with the landlord’s neighbourhood management policy which says residents should report criminal activity such as drug use and drug dealing to the police in the first instance. However, there is no evidence the landlord followed up on the resident’s reports with the police. It therefore missed an opportunity to gather evidence of ASB and work in partnership with external agencies to address the neighbour’s behaviour.
16. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy says it has an obligation towards residents accused of ASB who are vulnerable, just as it does to residents reporting ASB. It may contact the support network of the person accused of ASB. There is no evidence the landlord contacted relevant support services before June 2023 and not again until February 2024. It would have been reasonable for it to engage with support services to tackle the ASB together to support resident’s living in the building who may have been affected.
17. The landlord needed to investigate and gather evidence of ASB. However, there is no evidence it asked the resident to complete incident diaries or provided her access to its ASB App to record abusive shouting and noise. There was also no evidence it interviewed the resident about the ASB. This was not in keeping with its ASB and hate crime policy which says it will interview residents and provide them with methods to gather evidence, including noise diaries, noise monitoring devices and a Noise App. The landlord did not provide or refer the resident to these resources which was a failing.
18. The landlord emailed the local authority environmental health team about a party that took place in the neighbour’s property in July 2023. It was appropriate for it to follow up on the resident’s reports to gather evidence from the attending officers. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and sent her a warning letter about the disturbance the party caused, which was appropriate.
19. The landlord responded to the ASB incident reported before October 2023 by sending 4 warning letters and emails to the resident’s neighbour. It said it would escalate matters if she continued to leave rubbish in communal areas, caused nuisance, and held parties. However, it did not follow through on these warnings for reasons that are confidential. We understand the ASB case was challenging but the landlord should not have committed to actions it could not carry out. This was not in keeping with its ASB and hate crime policy which says it will not raise expectations that it can act where it cannot or where primary responsibility and powers lie elsewhere.
20. Between July 2023 and February 2024, the landlord visited the block to remove offensive graffiti and check on the neighbour’s refuse management. It also sent a block letter to all residents to ensure they were aware of their obligation to keep the communal areas in a good condition in line with their tenancy agreement. It was appropriate for the landlord to monitor the communal areas and raise awareness of the required cleanliness standards in the building.
21. The landlord supplied a separate bin for the resident’s neighbour on an undisclosed date. The resident also said the landlord agreed her neighbour could store recycling refuse in her property, but we have not seen evidence of this agreement. It was reasonable for the landlord to explore different approaches to the refuse management to limit the negative impact of this on other residents. However, the landlord needed to consider the access needs of the resident’s disabled son and whether storing combustible materials caused any fire safety risks to residents. The landlord later withdrew the alternative refuse management arrangements which was appropriate in the circumstances.
22. The landlord obtained legal advice in February 2024. This is confidential but was positive considering the ongoing and escalating nature of the ASB. This led to the landlord obtaining further advice and requesting further information which was appropriate. It would have been better if the landlord obtained legal advice sooner given the distress and inconvenience the resident reported.
23. The severity of ASB incidents increased between February 2024 and October 2024.The resident reported regular drug use, noise, violence, vandalism, abusive insults, unattended dogs, dumped furniture, and blocked access to her disabled parking space. However, the landlord only cleaned and cleared the block of dumped rubbish. This caused the resident further distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in reporting matters. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have an action plan to address the ASB in partnership with external agencies. And communicate with the resident to manage her expectations.
24. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy says if the person reporting ASB is vulnerable, it can arrange a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) meeting with the community safety team. The landlord was aware of the resident’s son’s disability, but it did not arrange a MARAC meeting. It also received repeated requests from the resident for it to act because she feared for her safety. The landlord’s failure to escalate action involving the police and external support agencies was a significant failing. These failings and delays addressing the ASB led to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in October 2024.
25. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy says it will use mediation wherever it is appropriate and at an early stage to try to resolve the ASB before it gets worse. There is no evidence it offered this before it sent its stage 1 complaint response in November 2024, 3 years after the resident started reporting ASB. This was inappropriate. The landlord recognised the neighbours’ relationship had broken down and acknowledged it had not previously offered mediation. Its failure to offer mediation at an earlier stage and its decision to do so 3 years later caused distress and inconvenience to the resident which it could have avoided. The landlord apologised to the resident for the impact of this in its final stage 2 complaint response in December 2024.
26. When a landlord acknowledged its failings, we will consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
27. The landlord acknowledged its failings, upheld the resident’s complaint, and made some attempt to put things right by apologising for its ASB handling delays. However, as it had not resolved the ASB it would have been appropriate for it to manage the resident’s expectations by providing clear information about how it would tackle the ASB. Further, by committing to keep her updated at regular intervals on its handling of the ASB.
28. The complaint response did not address the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its handling of the ASB may have caused the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may consider compensation following a failure to follow a policy or provide a service in line with its service standards. It recognised its delays and upheld the resident’s complaint, so it would have been reasonable to offer compensation. Its failure to do so, and lack of a plan for tackling the ASB was likely to cause further distress and inconvenience to the resident. Taking all matters into account we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
29. The landlord’s redress was not proportionate to the impact of its failings. We have ordered it to pay the resident £500 compensation for these failings. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for circumstances where we found maladministration the landlord has not proportionately addressed.
30. We cannot order the landlord to pay compensation for the resident’s experience of the ASB because it was not the landlord’s actions. The compensation recognises the landlord’s failures caused some distress and inconvenience – which the resident was unlikely to experience if the landlord followed its policy. This award considers the families’ vulnerabilities and recognises the landlord’s ASB handling may have had a more severe effect when compared to residents in the same position without vulnerabilities.
31. The ASB incidents continued after the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The landlord continued to work with the police and external support agencies to tackle the ASB. The resident reported her neighbour made threats to her life. She also requested urgent rehousing, which the landlord is now pursuing alongside legal enforcement action.

The resident’s complaint

32. The landlord did not register or provide a complaint response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 3 November 2023. Instead, it replied to her complaint as a general enquiry. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.2 and 6.3 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). These paragraphs say landlords must acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt and respond within a further 10 working days.
33. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 17 October 2024 until 4 November 2024. This was 7 working days later than the 5 working day timescale contained in the Code.
34. The landlord did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint such as her allegation it discriminated against her and her family. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.7 of the Code. This says landlords must address all points and provide reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice. By failing to respond to these allegations, the landlord has not given due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It would have been appropriate for it to directly address the resident’s allegations in its response. Alternatively, to request further information from the resident about her discrimination concerns.
35. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. It missed the opportunity to recognise its complaint handling delays and failings may have caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble. Taking all matters into account there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord.
36. We have ordered an award of £150 compensation in keeping with our remedies guidance where we have found maladministration the landlord has not proportionately addressed.

Determination (decision)

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

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £650 in compensation made up as follows:
       1. £500 for any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of ASB caused to the resident.
       2. £150 for any time and trouble the landlord’s complaint handling failures have caused to the resident.
    2. Write to the resident and us to provide an update on its actions and plans to tackle any ongoing ASB that may continue to affect the resident and her neighbours.
40. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears the resident may owe the landlord, where they exist.

Recommendation

41. We recommend the landlord continues to support the resident with her request to move from the property by discussing her rehousing options with her.