Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Brent (202325341)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325341

London Borough of Brent

26 March 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:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The level of caretaking services provided.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a low-rise block. The landlord maintains the communal gardens which surround the block. The resident has lived at the property since 1984.
  2. In May 2023 the resident told the landlord that a neighbour was regularly leaving the communal back door unlocked. She also said the cleaner had not attended and the communal gardens were overgrown. The landlord replied to her emails and said it would visit the neighbour and investigate its caretaking schedule. It said that it cut the communal gardens regularly.
  3. The resident complained on 17 July 2023. She made further allegations that her neighbour left the communal back door unlocked in July 2023. She said the same neighbour damaged the side gate. She repeated her concern that the gardens were overgrown. She said she had no update from the landlord on her allegations about the neighbour since 31 May 2023.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. It said that it had visited the neighbour, who denied the allegations they were leaving the door unlocked. It gave her advice on how to evidence her allegations. It said that it would review the grounds maintenance.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint on 21 August 2023. She said:
    1. The landlord had not cleared some bulky rubbish from the communal gardens.
    2. The grass and bushes were overgrown.
    3. The neighbour continued to leave the communal door unlocked in July and August 2023.
    4. She did not want to pay for the repair of the side gate.
  6. On 23 August 2023 the resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord. She said the cleaner had not attended on 22 August 2023 and the caretaker had moved the bins, leaving grease marks in the communal area. The landlord replied to the resident the same day and said it would clean the stain.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 1 September 2023. It said that it had conducted a deep clean of the block on 25 August 2023 and removed the fly tipped waste on 21 August 2023.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 September 2023. It said the resident had not evidenced her allegation that the neighbour was leaving the communal door unlocked. It had written to all residents on 19 July 2023 reminding them of the importance of keeping the door locked. It added that is inspection reports from May, July, and August 2023 showed it was maintaining the communal gardens. It repaired the side gate on 5 September 2023.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident disputed the amount of service charge payable for the repair to the side gate. The Ombudsman will not consider the amount of, or increase to, service charges nor whether the amount the landlord charged is reasonable. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Any dispute over the level of service charge fall properly within the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint procedure. It sets out timescales to respond to complaints. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days, issues a response at stage 1 within 20 working days, and a response at stage 2 within 30 working days.

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather it is to assess how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received, and whether it reasonably followed its policy and good practice, considering all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident first alleged that her neighbour was not closing the communal door on 16 May 2023. The landlord replied on 17 May 2023 and agreed to address the allegations with the neighbour. It responded promptly to the resident’s report and took appropriate action. However, it did not provide an update to the resident and this caused the resident some additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint. This was a shortcoming of the landlord.
  3. The resident reported further incidents on 17 July 2023. The landlord addressed these further reports in its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. It appropriately offered to assist the resident to gather further evidence as the neighbour denied the allegations.
  4. In its stage 2 response on 22 September 2023, the landlord said that it delivered letters to all residents in the block on 19 July 2023. This was a proportionate response to the resident’s allegations of ASB. It was fair to say that it did not have sufficient evidence to take more substantive action. Its summary of its actions taken reflect the evidence available to the Ombudsman.
  5. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. It took reasonable steps to inform residents in the block of the importance of keeping the back door shut. It visited the neighbour alleged to be causing the nuisance. It responded within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It explained how the resident could provide further evidence to prove who the offending party was. These were all appropriate actions.

The level of caretaking services provided

  1. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the upkeep/cleanliness of the communal areas of the block. To do this, the landlord should provide a regular cleaning service and conduct regular estate inspections.
  2. The landlord’s summary of the inspections conducted between March and August 2023 in its stage 2 response reflected the records available to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s records show that it conducted grounds maintenance inspections in March, May, July, and August 2023. Each of the reports evidenced that it was cutting the grass and maintaining the grounds to a reasonable standard.
  3. In response to her report that bulky waste was outside the block on 21 August 2023, the landlord attended within 2 working days. It cleared the rubbish and, when it was unable to remove stains from the communal grounds, it conducted a deep clean on 24 August 2023. It showed that it took the resident’s reports seriously, responded within reasonable timescales, and resolved the issues raised.
  4. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the level of caretaking services provided. The landlord promptly replied to reports made by the resident about the cleanliness of the block and the upkeep of the communal areas. It responded to her reports within a reasonable period throughout the timeline. Its records showed that it was conducting regular estate inspections and monitoring the cleanliness of the block.

The associated complaint

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our approach is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it responded to the resident’s complaints within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. The resident complained on 17 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. This was 9 working days later and within the 20 working days in its procedure.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 September 2023. This was 24 working days later and within the 30 working days in its procedure.
  4. The resident made her second complaint on 23 August 2023. The landlord issued its second stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. This was 7 working days later and within the 20 working days in its procedure.
  5. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. Its responses accurately reflected the evidence available to the Ombudsman. It was fair in its approach and took reasonable steps to resolve the issues she raised.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the level of caretaking services provided.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.