Wandle Housing Association Limited (202507914)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a communal block with her young child. She reported anti-social behaviour within her block including drug dealing. She explained that this was causing concerns for the safety of herself and her young child and asked the landlord to move her to an alternative property. The resident has made the landlord aware of her vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. Request for a management transfer.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. In summary we found that the landlord:
   1. Failed to agree an action plan with the resident as per its ASB policy and did not communicate effectively with her.
   2. Did not respond to the resident’s request for a management transfer in a timely manner.
   3. Failed to raise the resident’s initial request for a complaint to be logged.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

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.

8. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between July 2022 and January 2025. This timeframe is reasonable given the absence of clarification from the landlord in its complaint responses and the resident’s consistent reporting of ASB during this period. Our role is not to determine whether the reported behaviour occurred or who the perpetrator might be, but to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately in line with its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it defines ASB as conduct that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It says that it aims to prevent ASB occurring and when this is reported, it will:
   1. Provide support to the person making the report to ensure their own well-being.
   2. Ensure action against the alleged perpetrator is as successful as possible.
   3. Investigate cases through a variety of methods such as diary sheets, speaking to the parties involved and visits by the investigating officer.
   4. Log reports and undertake a risk assessment to highlight vulnerabilities, risks or safeguarding concerns to ensure cases are prioritised appropriately.
   5. Draw up an appropriate action plan that is agreed with the complainant.
   6. Update complainants regularly on the progress of their case and of any key developments.
10. On 12 July 2022 the resident reported noise from her neighbour’s property, stating that visitors were present throughout the night and leaving bicycles in communal areas. She said this was preventing her from sleeping. The landlord appropriately raised an ASB case and completed a risk assessment in line with its policy. However, it did not agree an action plan with the resident or maintain communication following the initial report, which was contrary to its policy requiring regular updates.
11. On 3 November 2022 the resident provided updates on ASB. The landlord acknowledged the report and requested diary sheets and evidence be provided by the resident, which was appropriate. It contacted the resident again on 22 November 2022 to propose an action plan and seek assistance in gathering evidence. The resident responded on 24 November 2022 with further information and agreed to provide evidence where possible. The landlord’s subsequent update on 22 December 2022 was in line with its policy.
12. Between December 2022 and March 2025 the resident made several reports of recurring issues and new allegations, including drug dealing and noise. The landlord logged these under the existing case which was reasonable. However, it incorrectly opened a new case on 31 May 2024, later closing it on 2 July 2024 and merging the information. This caused the report to be missed by the landlord at the time of the resident reporting it which resulted in a delay in contacting her.
13. The landlord completed an initial risk assessment in July 2022 which was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. However, it did not carry out any further risk assessments until 31 May 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so given the resident’s ongoing reports and her assertion that she felt unsafe. On 31 October 2023 the resident reported feeling unsafe due to illegal activities and ongoing ASB from her neighbour. The landlord advised that she was adequately housed and signposted her to social services and the police for concerns about her child’s safety. While signposting to the police was reasonable, the landlord missed an opportunity to re-assess risk and offer support in line with its ASB policy.
14. There were significant gaps in communication throughout the period assessed. The resident often had to chase updates. For example, after agreeing an action plan on 10 July 2023, the landlord did not contact her again until 12 September 2023, following her report that the issues persisted. This lack of communication breached the ASB policy and would have likely left the resident feeling unsupported.
15. The landlord provided evidence of communication with the police between 2023 and 2025, including securing closure orders on the property. This was appropriate and demonstrated multi-agency working in line with its policy. However, the landlord did not update the resident on these actions, which was a failing.
16. In both complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the ASB concerns better. However, it did not identify specific failures or capture learning which would have been reasonable to demonstrate a thorough review of its processes.
17. The landlord did not award compensation for the impact of its acknowledged failings. While there is no evidence that the overall outcome would have changed with better communication, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the impact the lack of communication had on the resident in line with its complaints policy which describes how it will put matters right in line with our remedies guidance. We consider the landlord’s failings would likely have caused frustration, inconvenience and distress to the resident. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay £250, in line with our remedies guidance for failures that were ongoing for a significant length of time. This sum also takes into account the vulnerabilities within the household.

18. We cannot order the landlord to move the resident, as social housing allocation is governed by statutory obligations and the landlord’s allocation policy, which prioritises applicants based on need. We are unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties. Our role is therefore to review how the landlord handled the resident’s request for a move.
19. In the landlord’s lettings and allocations policy, it has a section regarding urgent moves and management transfers. In this it says:
    1. The landlord can allocate properties that become available to let to existing tenants where an individual’s personal safety is at risk within their current home.
    2. The accommodation offered will be the same size as the current home.
    3. All requests must be approved by the lettings panel who will meet at least once a quarter.
    4. Refusal of a suitable offer will result in a resident’s removal from the management transfer waiting list.
20. On 17 May 2023 the resident told the landlord she felt unsafe in her home and requested assistance to move. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 7 June 2023, after the resident chased for a response. In its response, it failed to address the request which was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the situation and advise on available options such as mutual exchange or management transfers.
21. In its stage 1 response on 9 January 2025 the landlord agreed to assist the resident with an internal management transfer and committed to contacting her during the week commencing 13 January 2025. It met this timescale and provided advice on the required information which was appropriate. However, in its final response the landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its handling of the resident’s request to be moved. It did not confirm that the resident’s form was submitted until 28 February 2025. Whilst this was a lengthy time to wait, her request was assessed by the lettings panel on 11 April 2025 which was within 3 months of filling in the form. This was appropriately in line with its policy and therefore, we cannot categorically say that this delayed the decision.
22. The landlord appropriately informed the resident of the panel’s decision on 11 April 2025. The resident responded on 21 April 2025 and told the landlord she wanted to appeal the decision to refuse her application. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request until the resident submitted an updated management transfer request form again on 16 July 2025. The landlord advised that this was due to staff leaving which is not appropriate. We expect landlords to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself and the resident that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligation. It informed the resident on 18 July 2025 that her request had been accepted. It offered a like-for-like property which was in line with its policy. This was appropriate.
23. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it takes into account guidance issued by us when considering fair and proportionate remedies. The landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the resident’s request and awarded £100 compensation in its final response. This amount does not reflect the impact its failures had on the resident because the landlord did not assess her requirement of a managed move for 2 years after it was first requested, and did not respond to her further claims that she felt unsafe in her home. Therefore we have made a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to award an additional £200 compensation. This reflects that the failure adversely affected the resident and addresses the moderate impact this had on her.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will:
    1. Acknowledge all complaint and review requests within 5 working days of receiving them.
    2. Respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of being acknowledged, and at stage 2 response within 20 working days.
    3. If there are delays in responding, it may extend at stage 1 of 10 working days and at stage 2 at 20 working days.
    4. It will agree any further extensions with the resident.
25. On 12 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to submit a formal complaint, stating that she had not received updates on her ASB case for two months. The landlord responded the same day with an update, which was appropriate. However, it should have treated this as a formal complaint and logged it for investigation. Failing to do so was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable to confirm whether the resident wished to proceed with the complaint after providing the update.
26. On 13 December 2024, the resident submitted a complaint regarding the landlord’s lack of action to protect her from ongoing ASB. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 December, six working days later. While slightly outside its policy timescale, this was broadly reasonable.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 January 2025, within its 10-working-day timescale. It was positive that the landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss the outcome on the same day.
28. On 4 June 2025 the resident requested a review of her complaint, explaining that nothing had changed and she still felt unsafe. The landlord acknowledged this seven working days later, which was a shortcoming as its policy requires acknowledgment within five working days.
29. On 14 July 2025, following new information about recent incidents, the landlord requested additional time to complete the stage 2 review. This was 21 working days after acknowledgment – one day beyond its timescale which was a minor failing. It was reasonable to request more time given the update, and the landlord appropriately asked the resident to provide further evidence.
30. The landlord acknowledged errors in communicating with the resident during its ASB investigation in its contact with us. Howeverit did not do so in its complaint responses which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it did not acknowledge that the resident initially requested a formal complaint be raised in September 2023. The landlord should have carried out a more thorough investigation when dealing with the complaint to recognise all of its failings. Doing this would have ensured that it identified learning opportunities and actions.
31. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 July 2025. It acknowledged that there were delays in addressing the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and awarded £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience. This is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, we have found service failure and ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £50 compensation to reflect the failure to initially raise the complaint and shortfall in its investigation.

Learning

32. The landlord’sshould improve ASB case management and ensure that it keeps residents updated regularly throughout its investigation, andagree action plans with them.
33. There were errors made in the initial logging process when ASB was reported. This should be addressed by the landlord to ensure its staff are aware of the process to follow to ensure that all reports are responded to.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. There were gaps in record keeping where there was a lack of information following staff leaving.

Communication

35. There were failures in communication with the landlord throughout the time period where she was reporting ASB.