Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202425466)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425466

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

03 June 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

3. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has several mental and physical health conditions.
4. On 21 April 2024 the resident made her first complaint and expressed dissatisfaction at the suitability of the property offered by the landlord. The resident added that it had not acted following reports of ASB against her neighbour. The resident advised that she had reported issues of drug dealing, fly tipping and noise nuisance. In resolution of her complaint, the resident sought to be rehoused to a property more suitable for her mental and physical health needs.
5. On 9 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response and stated that its records indicated that it did not receive an appeal following the resident’s acceptance of the property. The landlord stated that it was aware of the issues between the resident and her neighbour and confirmed that it had taken appropriate action in relation to an incident concerning a bin. It stated that it did not have any record of reports of noise nuisance or drug dealing. It encouraged the resident to report any incidents and signposted her to the police to report drug dealing.
6. On 12 August 2024 the resident requested her complaint be escalated as the ongoing issues with her neighbour had not only affected her health and wellbeing but made her feel unsafe at home.  The resident maintained that the property was unsuitable and that she felt obliged to accept the property at the time it was offered.
7. On 23 September 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response and advised that it was last in contact with the resident in May 2024 where the resident advised that there was no further ASB to report. It advised that the resident had declined its mediation service when offered. The landlord outlined the evidence it had considered when it had offered the property, and that it had not received the necessary evidence from the resident to support her rehousing request.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. In resolution of her complaint, the resident sought to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, this is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
10. As part of complaint, the resident has raised issues she experienced when seeking to be rehoused by a local authority. Housing allocations, bidding, banding and the housing register are functions which are administered by the local authority. Any points of a resident’s complaint that relate to these functions fall outside of the jurisdiction of this service. This is because we can only consider complaints about local authorities in their capacity as landlords performing their housing management function.
11. Any complaints that relate to these functions would be better discussed with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is in line with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

12. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to several altercations between her and her neighbour, which included reports of fly tipping and threatening behaviour. The resident had complained that the landlord had not acted against her neighbour. In its initial complaint response, the landlord stated that it had taken appropriate action in relation to an incident concerning a bin.
13. In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, we would expect to see evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report within 5 working days and agreed an action plan on how it intended to resolve the issue. This Service has not been provided a copy of this ASB file; therefore, we are unable to establish what steps the landlord may have taken to address this matter or comment on whether those steps were appropriate.
14. Given the resident had expressed concerns that the landlord had not acted against the neighbour, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained its approach and outlined why enforcement action was not appropriate at this time. This would have allowed the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations better.
15. The resident stated that despite the landlord taking some action in response to reports of noise nuisance, the issue remained ongoing. In response the landlord advised that no reports had been received, nor had it witnessed any noise nuisance from the neighbouring property. There is no available evidence to indicate when the resident reported this. Notwithstanding this, the landlord responded positively in its complaint response by encouraging the resident to report noise nuisance at the time of the disturbance.
16. The resident advised that she continued to experience challenging behaviour from her neighbour which had a serious impact on her mental and physical health. It would have been reasonable to have undertaken a risk assessment at this time to identify the severity of the issues and the impact to the resident, which would enable it to determine the urgency of its response.
17. The landlord’s evidence shows that it did this. The risk assessment did not find that there was an immediate need to take intervening action due to the limited evidence. The Ombudsman has identified that this risk assessment was undated however, and so cannot say with any certainty that the assessment completed relates to the period of time in which the resident reported the challenging behaviour.
18. The resident stated that she had reported drug dealing to the landlord, we have not seen evidence that she had raised this with the landlord outside of her initial complaint. Whilst the landlord had advised that no reports had been received in its complaint response, it acted appropriately by signposting the resident to the police to report alleged drug dealing. This was in line with its ASB policy.
19. The landlord’s policy states that it will regularly review resident’s cases and will close cases where 4 weeks have passed following the resident’s last contact. On 23 September 2024 the landlord issued its final response and advised that the last contact received from the resident concerning her neighbour was in May 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided this Service with a copy of this correspondence with the resident. Notwithstanding this, the landlord noted that the resident had no further incidents to report at this time.
20. This Service notes the resident’s assertion that she had stayed away from the property due to the impact of the ASB, and that this precluded her from making further reports. The resident stated that she had chosen to stop reporting incidents in favour of seeking alternative accommodation.  Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s rationale, it should be noted that landlords rely on residents to report ASB incidents. The landlord would have been unable to act on issues it was unaware of.
21. We encourage the resident to engage with the landlord if these issues remain ongoing as it would enable the landlord to investigate them, provide the necessary support to the resident and to take the appropriate action when required.
22. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of ASB reports, yet it appears that there may be some gaps in the evidence. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.
23. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Because the landlord has not provided any evidence of its contact with the resident, in particular the contact made in 2023, and between March and May 2024, we are unable to assess whether this was in relation to any ASB reported by the resident.
24. With that said, this Service has been unable to see that there were reports made by the resident that the landlord failed to respond to. Consequently, we are unable to determine that there was any detriment caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions or inaction. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in respect of its handling of ASB reports.
25. It is understood that the resident has made further reports of ASB following the landlord’s final complaint response. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would be appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her concerns and consider any reported behaviour in line with its policies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
27. The landlord’s complaint policy states that:
    1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days.
    2. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days.
28. The resident first complained on 21 April 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it 2 working days later. This was within the landlord’s timeframes for complaint acknowledgement.
29. On 24 July 2024 the landlord apologised that it failed to issue its stage 1 response within its advertised timeframes and attributed the delay to a system error. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this failure and offered a revised timeframe of 2 August 2024.
30. The landlord’s stage 1 response was subsequently issued on 9 August 2024, 77 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. Although an extension was agreed in July 2024, in total the landlord had taken a significant amount of time to respond to the resident’s initial complaint. Moreover, despite the extension deadline being significantly after when the complaint was initially raised, the landlord still failed to meet this deadline.
31. The resident escalated the complaint on 12 August 2024, and the landlord provided its acknowledgement the following day, this was within its policy timeframe. The landlord provided its final response on 23 September 2024; exceeding the policy timeframe by 10 working days.
32. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because there were delays in the landlord issuing both complaint responses. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman awards £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the service failure identified. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £100 for complaint handling and provide this Service with evidence that the compensation has been paid.

Recommendations

37. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord should contact the resident regarding the reported ASB. It should complete a risk assessment, agree an action plan of how it will investigate it. The action plan should outline what steps it will take to support the resident and to resolve her ASB concerns. 
38. The landlord should conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were. The landlord should also consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.