London Borough of Camden Council (202310255)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310255

Camden Council

27 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti–social behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the property since 20 June 2011 following a mutual exchange. The landlord has advised us that the resident has not shared any vulnerabilities. The landlord has also advised us that the property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a block.
Between 2012 and 2022, the resident made various reports to the landlord that 2 of her neighbours were causing noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB). The resident contacted us on 23 May 2023 to report various ASB issues that she said had occurred over the past 12 years. The ASB included stalking, terrorising her, abuse, threats to kill, threatening letters and texts, flooding from the flat above, shouting, drilling and banging. She also stated that her dog had died because of the noise and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and ‘racial microaggressions’. Finally, she said that her brother was living in one of the flats above her and was terrorising her.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 June 2023 and said she wanted to report flooding from the flat above her property. On 28 September 2023, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to treat the resident’s email dated 27 June 2023 as a stage 1 complaint. During October 2023, the resident reported further ASB caused by the 2 neighbours and attached recordings, which she said included threats to kill and information to show her computer had been hacked.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 October 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. In 2019, the landlord’s Community Safety Team had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and found that her concerns were not substantiated. They therefore closed the case and sent her a letter in May 2019 confirming this.
2. In December 2021, the resident had reported a leak and ASB. At the time, the landlord advised her the leak had been repaired and gave her details of how to make an insurance claim if she felt the landlord had been at fault. The landlord advised her to report any criminal behaviour to the police in the first instance. The landlord closed the case as it explained that it had investigated the previous incidents and had not substantiated them.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 May 2023 and the landlord replied to say it was investigating the reports of ASB with partner agencies. The landlord said it would not be able to share some of the information with the resident due to data protection.
4. The landlord advised the resident in response to her email of 24 May 2023 that it had logged a repair following a reported flood from the flat above and was due to carry out repairs.
5. The landlord’s Housing Officer had spoken to the resident and had advised her to raise any repair issues directly with the landlord’s repairs team.
6. The most recent report of flooding affecting the property was in September 2023. The resident had reported that water had entered the light fittings. An electrician attended in September 2023 and stated in his notes that no water was found in the light fittings.
7. The landlord said it would arrange for one of its staff to contact the resident to discuss the ongoing reports of issues with her neighbours.
8. The landlord said that the resident had reported several years of concerns about the neighbours, but it would not investigate these matters as they had been looked into previously. The landlord therefore said it was unable to uphold this part of her complaint.
9. The landlord said it would pass the resident’s request for a copy of her housing file to its data team to be dealt with as a subject access request (SAR). It said that any issues relating to the SAR were a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.
10. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. It apologised for not responding to some of the resident’s correspondence in a timely manner and not providing any recent advice on how to report her concerns.
11. The landlord said its Rents team was looking at the resident’s concerns about the size of the second bedroom in her property and would be in touch with her.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2023 with her stage 2 complaint and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports because:
1. She had evidence and recordings of abusive letters posted to her but had not had any contact from the landlord and it had not investigated her evidence.
2. She said by not dealing with the reports of ASB over the last 12 years, the landlord had been responsible for mental health discrimination, religious discrimination, racial microaggression, sexual harassment, physical and mental stress, loss of earnings, stalking, property damage and death.
3. She referred to her television and other belongings being stolen when she moved into the property.
4. She said the mutual exchange had been “disingenuous” because she was unaware at the time about some of the issues in the block.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 1 November 2023 to discuss her complaint and then sent its stage 2 reply on 14 November 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the lack of response in relation to the complaint handling and upheld the complaint.
2. The landlord said its decision not to investigate the resident’s report of ASB in December 2021 was flawed as it had been over 2 years since the original investigation and therefore a fresh investigation should have been carried out.
3. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s complaint made in May 2023 but this only happened in October 2023 following our involvement.
4. The landlord agreed that the manager who visited the resident at home on 1 November 2023 should have made more effort to understand the issues and the background prior to the visit. The landlord apologised for this.
5. The landlord said that going forward it would take on board the resident’s feeling that she had not been listened to.
6. The landlord agreed to review the previous ASB issues and report back to the resident with an action plan.
7. The landlord had noted at the visit on 1 November 2023 that the resident had not wished to share the recordings she had made.
8. The landlord concluded that the resident had experienced difficulty and delay in trying to get her reports of ASB investigated. She had also needed to chase responses repeatedly.
9. The landlord apologised for the service experienced by the resident and offered compensation of £550.
The resident contacted us on 28 November 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 reply. She said her complaint included sexual harassment as well as ASB, flooding, mould and requests for housing records. She outlined the ASB incidents, which she said included sexual orgies and property damage caused by 6 floods over the years. She added that she wanted a rent refund because one of the rooms was too small to be classed as a bedroom. She rejected the landlord’s offer of £550.
During 2024, the landlord contacted the occupants of the flats above the resident’s property. However, the resident continued to write to the landlord stating she was experiencing noise and ASB and advised us on 5 March 2025 that she was continuing to experience ASB problems.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s stage 2 complaint dated 19 October 2023 stated that she had been subjected to mental health discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual harassment and ‘racial microaggression’. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Nonetheless, we can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident in relation to the incidents she reported and in its complaints handling.
In the same email dated 19 October 2023, the resident said she had experienced loss of earnings and damage to artwork. It is not within our authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. Only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance, this would include the artwork, which the resident said had been damaged by water and mould.
The resident advised the landlord on 15 November 2023 that the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB issues had caused her physical and mental stress. She also advised us on 23 May 2023 that the noise had led to the death of her dog. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The resident stated on various occasions both to the landlord and to us that she had experienced ASB from her neighbours for several years since she moved to the property in 2011. She also referred to issues experienced in her previous property. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of matters from 2021. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2021 is made in this report to provide context.
We have received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 14 November 2023. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident advised us on 28 November 2023 that she was seeking a refund of her rent because of the size of the rooms. However, this was not included as part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 19 October 2023 and therefore was not included in the landlord’s stage 2 reply dated 14 November 2023. Therefore, we do not consider it fair and reasonable to include this in our investigation as this matter was not considered by the landlord as part of its final response on 14 November 2023.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply dated 16 October 2023 that it had passed the resident’s request for a copy of her housing file to its data team so it could be dealt with as a subject access request (SAR). We have not investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her SAR because this did not form part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Furthermore, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data handling and SARs, rather than us.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported happened or not. It is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2021 and said she had not received a response to her previous emails regarding noise and ASB. She attached audio recordings to support her case. The landlord responded on 24 May 2021 and said it would investigate the resident’s reports of noise. It was unreasonable that the landlord took over 2 months to reply to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 May 2021 and said that 2 of her neighbours had been “terrorising” her for the past 10 years. She said she had provided information on several occasions but said she would provide further details at the weekend. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 July 2021 and requested a reply to her email of 25 May 2021. The landlord responded on 11 August 2021 and said it had been expecting the resident to submit further supporting information. As the resident had indicated she would be sending further information regarding the reported ASB and noise, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect her to send further details.
The resident wrote to the resident on 15 August 2021 and said she had written several times to the landlord and documented the ASB/noise. The landlord replied on 25 August 2021 and said it would consider the resident’s request for incidents during the past 10 years to be reviewed. In the meantime, it said it was happy to investigate her current complaints but would need specific details, including dates and times. As the resident was asking the landlord to review the events of the previous 10 years, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether this was feasible. It was also reasonable for the landlord to request specific details of recent incidents so it could investigate them.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2021 and reported continuous noise from 2 of her neighbours. She said that she could hear children being abused, threats and conversations about killing her and continuous noise. The landlord replied on 8 September 2021 and advised the resident to report any criminal matters to the police. It confirmed it would review and investigate the noise issues she had raised. As the resident had reported serious criminal matters, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise her to report them to the police in the first instance.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 September and 17 October 2021 and referred to “orgies” and sexual abuse taking place in the 2 flats above her property. The landlord replied on 25 October 2021 and confirmed it had reviewed the historical information in its files. It stated that its Community Safety Team had previously investigated the resident’s concerns and had not found any evidence to support her reports. The landlord said it had now requested information from the police and would update the resident when it received the information.
It was reasonable that the landlord had reviewed the historical information in its files so that it understood the substance of the resident’s complaints and was aware of the previous investigations. It was also reasonable that the landlord had requested information from the police as the landlord was aware there had been previous police involvement. The landlord wrote again to the resident on 9 November 2021 and said it had submitted a police disclosure form to the police and said it would update the resident when it had received the full police disclosure.
The resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord on 29 May 2022. She said she had complained about ongoing ASB for 10 years and had been subjected to “terrorisation”, sexual abuse and threats to kill. She also referred to flooding from the flat above, which she said had caused damage to her property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 June 2022 and said it believed the issues raised by the resident could be resolved locally and therefore it had referred the matter to the relevant team which would contact her.
We have not seen any evidence to show that between November 2021 and May 2022 the landlord followed up the resident’s concerns after it had advised her in November 2021 that it was waiting for information from the police. This was unreasonable as it had been 7 months since it had requested the information from the police. It is unclear from the evidence seen whether the landlord had received the information from the police.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2023 and said she had been told on 6 June 2022 that the relevant team would contact her regarding her report of ASB. We have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord responded to her email of 28 March 2023. The lack of response from the landlord led to the resident submitting a further online complaint form on 6 May 2023. She said she had suffered 12 years of abuse and referred to the landlord’s email dated 6 June 2022 saying her complaint had been closed. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email of 28 March 2023, particularly as she had been waiting since 6 June 2022 for the relevant team to contact her.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 23 May 2023 and outlined some of the ASB she said she had experienced over the previous 12 years, including threats to kill, abuse, terrorising, stalking, banging, drilling and shouting. She also said her property had been flooded 5 times, including in December 2021 and May 2023. The landlord replied to the resident on 24 May 2023 and advised her that the complaint she submitted on 6 May 2023 fell outside its definition of a complaint. The landlord said it had referred the matter to the relevant team for them to respond. The landlord’s decision not to treat the resident’s correspondence as a complaint is assessed below as part of our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 and 27 June 2023 to report flooding from the property above. In her email dated 27 June 2023, she said that she had just redecorated following a previous flood earlier in the month. The resident also reported in her email of 27 June 2023 that she had recorded children being abused on 26 June 2023 and said she was being stalked. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 reply that it its Housing Officer responded on 25 July 2023 and advised the resident to raise any repair related issues directly with the repairs team. It was unreasonable that the landlord took over 7 weeks to reply to the resident’s email sent on 9 June 2023.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord properly investigated whether the reported flooding was caused by misuse or neglect of the premises by the neighbours upstairs. The resident had advised the landlord on 23 May 2023 that her property had previously been flooded 5 times. This should have prompted the landlord to investigate whether the flooding was caused by misuse of the premises. It was unreasonable that it failed to investigate and provide feedback to the resident.
Although the landlord had advised the resident it was in discussions with other agencies, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord logged a new ASB case and carried out investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB and flooding. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not logged a new ASB case, including carrying out a risk assessment and interviewing the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 September 2023 to report that her property had been flooded again on 21 September 2023. She said in her view the floods were intentional. She also reported that the neighbours above her had been causing noise and ASB. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s email prior to us contacting the landlord on 28 September 2023. This was unreasonable as the resident had reported damage to her property caused by flooding and had again reported ASB by her neighbours. Given that the resident had reported previous flooding and had suggested that there may have been an element of anti-social behaviour related to the flooding, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to say it would investigate the cause of the reported flooding.
The landlord again had an opportunity to log a new ASB case and investigate the resident’s reports of ASB when she reported ASB in her email of 22 September 2023. However, based on the evidence seen, the landlord failed to deal with the matter as a new report of ASB. This was inappropriate as the resident had given examples of ASB, which she said was being caused by her neighbours.
On 28 September 2023, we wrote to the landlord stating that the resident had reported she was experiencing ASB, flooding, mould and difficulties accessing her housing records. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 and 19 October 2023 about threatening letters she had previously received in the post and about the ASB she had experienced over the previous 12 years. She also mentioned ASB issues she had experienced in her previous property. It was unreasonable that by October 2023 the landlord had still not investigated the resident’s reports of ASB by interviewing her, carrying out a risk assessment and agreeing an action plan with her. The risk assessment would have enabled the landlord to decide on the level of risk to the resident and to assign an appropriate level of priority in terms of its management of the case. For example, a high level of risk would have indicated the need for the landlord to investigate the case without delay.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 October 2023 and arranged to visit her at home on 1 November 2023. The landlord later accepted in its stage 2 complaint reply that the person who visited the resident on 1 November 2023 had not familiarised himself with the background of the case. It was unreasonable that the officer had not reviewed the background information as the resident had sent various emails to the landlord outlining the reported incidents of ASB. Familiarisation with these would have given the landlord a clearer understanding of the issues. It would also have signalled to the resident that it was taking her reports of ASB seriously. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 November 2023 and expressed her dissatisfaction that the person who had visited her did not have any background knowledge regarding her complaints of ASB.
We have noted that following the visit, the landlord sent a letter to the residents of the block on 2 November 2023. The letter asked residents not to leave the communal door open and not to let strangers into the building. It also advised residents to call the police if they saw someone being aggressive or using illegal substances. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise residents that it had received reports of ASB and to advise residents of measures to help enhance the security within the block.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 November 2023 and advised her it was looking into her reports of ASB and noise. It said that the neighbour and her children were not living in the property directly above her and therefore there should not be any noise coming from the flat. The landlord said it would contact the leaseholder who owned the flat located 2 floors above the resident’s property to find out who was living there. The landlord advised the resident to report any drug-related issues to the police. It was reasonable that the landlord had written to the resident to update her regarding the steps it was taking to investigate her reports of ASB and noise. It was also reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to report any drug-related issues to the police. This is because the police are responsible for investigating crimes, such as illegal drug use and the landlord has no powers to investigate or prosecute people for criminal acts.
The resident sent additional emails to the landlord on 9, 11 and 13 November 2023 to say there were people living in the flats above her property and they were causing noise and ASB. She said she had advised the landlord of this during the visit on 1 November 2023. She said one of her other neighbours had seen someone climbing up the wall to access one of the flats. She also said she had already provided a statement to the police. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord agreed to review the previous ASB issues reported by the resident and report back to the resident with an action plan.
As the resident had continued to report ASB, noise and flooding from the flats above her property, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to review the previous reported incidents and to produce an action plan. The action plan would ensure the resident was aware of the next steps to be taken by the landlord and when they would be taken.
Overall, we have found that the landlord did not adequately investigate the resident’s complaints of noise, ASB and flooding during the period we have investigated. This included failing to produce an up-to-date risk assessment and agree with the resident a clear action plan with timescales. We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord made the resident aware during or after 2021 that she could request an ASB case review (formerly known as the community trigger), which would allow various agencies to review her reports of ASB. Finally, we have found that the landlord’s communication with the resident during the period was poor as there was sometimes a lack of response to her emails and delays in replying.
We have seen from the evidence provided to us that the landlord was dealing with a sensitive situation in relation to the neighbour in the flat above the resident’s property. Nevertheless, we would expect the landlord to adhere to certain principles in relation to its handling of the reports of ASB. These principles include properly investigating the resident’s reports of ASB, completing an up-to-date risk assessment, agreeing an action plan with the resident and monitoring the case to ensure the actions are completed.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord used its stage 2 reply to uphold the resident’s complaint and apologise for its lack of response. It accepted that its decision not to investigate the reports of ASB in 2021 was flawed because it had been more than 2 years since its previous investigation in 2019. It accepted that the case had not been assigned to a new officer when the previous one had left the organisation in 2023. The landlord also apologised that the officer who visited the resident on 1 November 2023 had not made more effort to understand the background in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £550 to put things right and to recognise the distress caused to the resident by its lack of communication and response. The landlord’s offer was made up of £300 for delay and failure to provide a service and £250 for distress, time and trouble.
As the landlord had identified failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge these failings and offer compensation to the resident. However, we do not consider the amount offered by the landlord was proportionate to address the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of effective investigation and response to her ASB reports. Furthermore, the landlord did not use its complaints process to demonstrate any learning to improve its handling of similar situations in the future. We have therefore found there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
Our finding recognises that the landlord made an offer of compensation but it did not, in our opinion, reflect the level of detriment to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to offer further compensation of £100, which is in line with our Remedies Guidance for service failures where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but we do not consider it to be proportionate to the level of detriment and/or the failings we identified.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. These response timescales may be extended to 20 working days at stage 1 and 65 working days at stage 2 if the case is complex.
At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord’s timescale of 25 working days for responding to stage 2 complaints was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code, which stipulated 20 working days. However, the landlord revised its Complaints Policy in 2024 to bring it in line with our code.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy defines a complaint as: “When someone lets us know that they are unhappy with our service and they want us to take action to resolve it”. The policy lists the following as examples of complaints:
1. Failure to follow process.
2. Failure to follow the Council’s own policy.
3. Significant or repeated failure to provide a service.
4. Failure to do what we said we would do.
5. Failure to respond.
The resident submitted an online complaints form to the landlord on 29 May 2022. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports over a 10-year period. She also said she had repeatedly asked for information and letters but had not received them. The landlord replied on 6 June 2022 and said that it believed the issues could be resolved informally and had therefore passed the matter to the relevant service.
Our Complaint Handling Code that was in operation at the time stated: “A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request”. In this case, it was clear from the resident’s complaint form that she had previously raised the matters as service requests and was dissatisfied with how these had been managed, particularly in relation to her information requests. Therefore, in our opinion it was inappropriate for the landlord not to treat the form submitted by the resident as a formal complaint.
The resident submitted a further online complaint form on 6 May 2023 in which she referred to continuous ASB issues. She also referred to the previous complaint form she had submitted and the email the landlord had sent to her on 6 June 2022 saying the matter would be dealt with informally. She said she had not been contacted by the relevant team. The landlord replied on 24 May 2023 and said the matters raised by the resident did not fall within its definition of a complaint because there were no service failures stated in the resident’s enquiry.
In our view, the landlord’s response was inappropriate because the resident had clearly stated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB issues and had indicated that there had been no progress made in relation to the reported ASB since the landlord’s email of 6 June 2022. Furthermore, we are unclear how the landlord had concluded there had not been any service failures without conducting an investigation into the resident’s complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 June 2023 and expressed dissatisfaction because of reported flooding and ASB from the flat above her property. She made it clear that she was unhappy because there had been 5 or 6 previous floodings. The resident’s email was not dealt with as a formal complaint. We consider this to have been inappropriate as the resident had clearly expressed her unhappiness with the further reported flooding and ASB and was seeking a resolution from the landlord. We therefore wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2023 and requested the landlord to treat the email of 27 June 2023 as a complaint.
The landlord responded to us on 2 October 2023 and confirmed it had logged a stage 1 complaint and would respond by 12 October 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 October 2023, which was 10 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore responded within the 10-working day timescale set out in its Complaints Policy, which was appropriate.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 reply. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and therefore this was inappropriate. This lack of acknowledgement led the resident to contact the landlord on 9 November 2023 to say she had requested a stage 2 review and wanted to know the next steps.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 14 November 2023, which was 18 working days after she had requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 19 October 2023. The landlord had therefore sent its stage 2 reply within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to complaint handling. However, it did not specifically outline any findings it had made into whether it should have treated any of the resident’s earlier correspondence as a formal complaint. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to examine and identify any learning from its handling of the resident’s previous requests for formal complaints to be raised.
Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints because:
1. The landlord did not treat the resident’s online form dated 29 May 2022 as a stage 1 complaint, even though she said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and she had not received information and letters she had requested.
2. The landlord did not treat the resident’s online form dated 6 May 2023 as a stage 1 complaint, despite her indicating there had been no progress made since the landlord had referred the matter to the relevant team in June 2022.
3. It was inappropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that her online form dated 6 May 2023 did not include any service failures without investigating the areas of dissatisfaction raised by the resident.
4. The landlord did not treat the resident’s email dated 27 June 2023 as a formal complaint, despite the resident indicating dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB and flooding.
We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £250 to put things right in terms of the additional time, trouble and distress caused to the resident in attempting to get the landlord to log a formal complaint. The amount ordered is within the range of sums shown in our Remedies Guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £650 for its handling of the reported ASB (the landlord may deduct from this sum the £550 offered at stage 2 if this has already been paid).
3. Paid the resident £250 in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.
4. Produced a risk assessment and an action plan with timescales for any proposed action to address the resident’s concerns about ASB and flooding if these have not already been produced.
5. Provided the resident with details of how she can request an ASB case review should she wish to do so.
6. Provided the resident with details of how she can make a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance for the reported flood damage should she wish to do so.