From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202345104)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345104

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

13 August 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by their neighbour.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The property is a bedsit. The tenancy commenced on 25 July 2011. The complaint was bought to the landlord and us by the resident’s wife. The resident and his wife live at the property with their 2 young children.
  2. On 24 January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about its ‘lack of action’ in response to their reports of ASB by their neighbour. The resident said this had ‘led to further harassment’ and referred to:
    1. their neighbour shouting, swearing, and banging on doors
    2. their neighbour coming to their front door in the early hours of the morning, and throwing their rubbish/nappy bin over the landing
    3. offensive odour (faeces) and flies coming up from his flat
    4. their neighbour making anonymous allegations about them, including noise nuisance, and to social services about their children
  3. On 6 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say that it was almost 10 days since their email of 24 January 2024 and they had still not had a response.
  4. On 4 March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord again. The resident said it had been 40 days since their email of 24 January 2024 and they were still waiting for a response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 March 2024 in which it said:
    1. no formal ASB case had been logged by the resident about their neighbour but it had received details of their concerns. The landlord noted these included: noise, the neighbour approaching their front door and interfering with their personal belongings, the poor condition of the neighbour’s property and making allegations against the resident about child neglect
    2. it had seen the resident’s doorbell camera footage, and noted it showed ‘a male’ approaching their front door, picking up a bag and a plant pot, and deliberately throwing them over the balcony. The landlord said this was ‘totally unacceptable’
    3. both their neighbourhood housing officer and neighbourhood team leader had raised concerns with the neighbour. They had attempted to get access to his property and had invited him into the office so they could put these allegations to him in person. Unfortunately, the neighbour had, up to that point, failed to provide access or to attend any meetings
    4. in its last communication with the neighbour, it advised if he failed to co-operate and attend the meeting, it would assume based on his refusal to comment that he was guilty of the incidents seen in the doorbell camera footage, and would issue him with a formal breach of tenancy letter
    5. if the neighbour’s behaviour continued, and it could evidence this, it would refer the case to its legal section to take further proportionate legal action in line with its ‘tenancy rules’
    6. if the resident experienced any further issue with their neighbour they should formally log an ASB case by calling it on a number provided in its response
  6. The resident escalated their complaint on 27 March 2024, in which they said:
    1. it was not correct that they had made no previous complaints
    2. they had reported incidents ‘over the years’ both via email and face to face. As such the landlord had previous knowledge of the actions of their neighbour before he threw their items over the balcony
    3. they had been ‘completely let down’ by the landlord and were ‘very disappointed’ by its response. The resident said there was never any follow up and they ‘lack(ed) faith that things (would) improve, having been told similar in the past’
  7. On 19 July 2024, following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord asking that it provide them with a response to their complaint.
  8. The landlord issued a second stage 1 on 2 August 2024, in which it provided details of the steps it had taken. These included:
    1. working with the neighbour’s social worker to access his property and discuss concerns about his behaviour
    2. inviting the neighbour to its office, as he had not provided access, which the neighbour did not agree to
    3. referring the case to its legal team due to the lack of engagement, concerns over the condition of the neighbour’s property, the harassment of the resident and their family, and the content of the videos it had seen from the resident
  9. The landlord also acknowledged it could have sought legal advice and acted before now. However, given the complexity of the case and the underlying support needs, the landlord said it would be required to demonstrate attempts at positive engagement before being able to seek any potential enforcement action.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 November 2024 in which it:
    1. acknowledged the delay in its response for which it ‘sincerely apologised’
    2. said it recognised its communication could have been improved
    3. confirmed it had taken ‘prompt, adequate and proportionate’ steps
    4. said it was in the process of ‘taking appropriate enforcement action to address the ASB issue’ in the resident’s building. The landlord said it was limited to how much information it could share but assured the resident it was progressing this matter for them
    5. confirmed its housing management panel had decided to award the resident priority for rehousing
    6. offered the resident a total of £150 compensation, made up of:
      1. £50 for its poor communication regarding the status of their ASB case
      2. £100 for the delay in its stage 2 response

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. 
  2. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to it to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  3. We are aware the resident had been experiencing ASB by their neighbour prior to the period covered in this report. However, as we explained to the resident in our call with them on 30 July 2025, the focus of this investigation will be on matters that occurred in the 12 months before their complaint was made on 24 January 2024.
  4. In those 12 months:
    1. the resident raised concerns about their neighbour’s behaviour during a tenancy audit on 9 August 2023. The records from this audit note the resident mentioning past incidents of their neighbour coming to their front door. The resident said there had been no recent issues although they did mention the smell which came from the neighbour’s property, especially in the summer.
    2. the resident’s neighbourhood housing officer emailed social services, on 19 January 2024, in response to an email from them about unsubstantiated allegations made by the neighbour about the resident’s family. In their email the neighbourhood housing officer confirmed they had received reports from the resident about the behaviour of their neighbour, referring to their visit to the resident on 9 August 2023
  5. The tenancy audit form refers to ‘potential legal action’ to get access to the neighbour’s property. We have seen no evidence of the landlord taking any legal action at that time.
  6. Following their initial complaint, of 24 January 2024 the resident reported on 4 March 2024, the ‘harassment (was) getting too much now’ and they had installed a doorbell camera ‘for (their) own safety’. The neighbourhood housing officer asked the resident if they had evidence of the neighbour coming back to their front door.
  7. The resident responded on 10 March 2024, attaching a video which they said contained footage of the neighbour coming to their front door and throwing things over the balcony. The resident also said the neighbour was ‘continually harrassing’ them and they believed this was a ‘vicious hate campaign.’ The resident said they were living in ‘constant fear and anxiety, especially because of the children.’
  8. These were serious allegations which the landlord should have logged as an ASB case and responded to in accordance with its ASB policy.
  9. Whilst the neighbourhood officer took a number of reasonable steps following this report, including seeking advice from the landlord’s legal team and asking the resident if they had contacted the police, no ASB case was raised. This was not appropriate and resulted in a number of important elements of the landlord’s ASB policy either being missed or it making no record of. These include:
    1. no evidence of a completed risk assessment. This was not reasonable as the landlord lacked oversight of the impact the ASB was having on the resident
    2. no evidence of the landlord agreeing an action plan with the resident 
    3. a failure to ensure the resident was contacted on a regular basis to monitor the neighbour’s behaviour and the impact this was having on them
    4. a lack of evidence of the landlord taking any further action to support the resident. This could have included signposting the resident to local support services
  10. In its stage 1 response on 26 March 2024 the landlord confirmed no ASB case had been opened but failed to reflect on whether this was appropriate or not. This was despite its ASB policy stating the following incidents would ‘always be considered’ to be ASB:
    1. any other person causing nuisance or annoyance which directly or indirectly affects its housing management functions, including neighbour disputes
    2. harassment and intimidation including racial, homophobic and hate crime
  11. Nevertheless, it did advise it had contacted the neighbour, that the neighbour had not engaged and that it would consider taking further action against him as a result. Whilst we do not doubt the landlord had done what it said it had; we have seen no evidence to support this.
  12. It was not until 24 April 2024, and after a further report from the resident of 23 April 2024 referring to the neighbour shouting, swearing, and ‘targeting’ them, that the landlord opened an ASB case file. However, this was again not managed by the landlord’s ASB team but instead was referred back to the resident’s neighbourhood housing officer to manage.
  13. On 27 April 2024, the resident provided further footage, on this occasion of the neighbour throwing their nappy bin over the balcony. The resident’s covering email referred to ‘racial abuse, shouting/swearing, false allegations made to the police and children social services.’
  14. Again, there is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident at this time nor of its carrying out a risk assessment or proposing an action plan.
  15. Proper record keeping is a core element of effective housing management. When records are missing or incomplete, a landlord’s claims cannot be verified. In this case, the absence of documentation has made it difficult to determine whether the landlord acted fairly or followed its policies. Because of the missing evidence, it is unclear how the landlord satisfied itself it had consistently taken ‘prompt, adequate and proportionate’ steps in response to the resident’s report.
  16. On 21 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord again referring to having heard nothing since March 2024 and being ‘appalled’ by the lack of communication and having had ‘no reassurance whatsoever’.
  17. The resident emailed their neighbourhood housing officer again on 30 May, 10 June and 10 July 2024 asking for updates. On 10 July 2024, the resident also provided further footage of the neighbour shouting and swearing. The neighbourhood officer responded on 15 July 2024, asking whether the resident had contacted the police.
  18. In its second stage 1 response of 2 August 2024. The landlord provided with resident with an update on what action it had taken. However, the resident should not have had to wait for the landlord to respond to their complaint in order to find out what action it had taken. Had they been communicated with in a more timely and effective manner, it may have reassured the resident the landlord had taken their concerns seriously and was taking steps to resolve them. That the landlord did not do so understandably undermined the resident’s confidence in its commitment to resolve the concerns they had raised.
  19. On 27 August 2024, the landlord referred the resident’s case to the council for its September housing management panel. The referral form was completed on 23 August 2024 by the resident’s neighbourhood housing officer.
  20. The referral form noted the assessment of risk to the resident was high and that the reason for referral was ‘Harassment against ethnic minorities.’ The referral went on to note the resident and their family had been ‘experiencing nuisance from the neighbour over a period of years, verbal and racial abuse in the form of name calling, criminal damage, false allegations against them, offensive odour and flies from the neighbours property which come up to our flat, shouting and swearing’.
  21. The seriousness of these allegations, make the landlord’s earlier failures all the more signficant.
  22. On 6 September 2024, and following advice from the council’s Assessment and Attainment Manager, the resident’s neighbourhood housing officer completed the council’s hate incident panel form. However, there was again a delay in the resident being advised of this, their neighbourhood housing officer not informing them until 18 September 2024, almost 2 weeks later.
  23. It is acknowledged the resident was ultimately awarded a priority move, and by 28 November 2024 had moved into their new home. It is also acknowledged the landlord recognised its poor communication with the resident in its final response, for which it offered £50 compensation.
  24. However, we do not consider an offer of £50 compensation to be proportionate to the level of failings in this case. This is because, in addition to its poor communication, there was poor case management practice and poor record keeping. This included the landlord’s failure to open an ASB case in a timely manner, in accordance with its ASB policy, together with the lack of evidence with regard to risk assessments being carried out and action plans being put in place.
  25. For this reason, and in light of the understandable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  26. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay them and additional £450 bringing the total compensation payable for this element of their complaint to £500. This figure being in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which the landlord has gone some way to acknowledge but neither its acknowledgement nor offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  27. The landlord has also been ordered to review its overall handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in this case. The landlord is then to confirm to us what action it intends to take in order to ensure similar failing do not occur again going forward.

Handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction by or on behalf of someone using or wishing to use (its) services’.
  2. In accordance with its complaints policy, in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord would have been expected to provide its formal responses within 20 working days at both stage 1 and stage 2.
  3. The resident first complained about the landlord’s ‘lack of action’ in response to their reports of ASB on 24 January 2024. As the resident had clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling their reports, it should have recognised the resident’s email as a formal complaint. As such it should have acknowledged the complaint and provided a stage 1 response within 20 working days, which it did not do.
  4. The resident chased their complaint with the landlord on 6 February 2024 and, having still received no response, raised a further complaint on 4 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 March 2024, within 20 working days of the resident’s follow up complaint of 4 March 2024. However, this was some 44 working days after the resident had initially complained to the landlord on 24 January 2024.
  6. The resident escalated their complaint on 27 March 2024. The landlord should then have provided a stage 2 response within 20 working days, and no later than 24 April 2024, which it did not do.
  7. As they had not received its response, the resident asked what was happening with their complaint in their email to the landlord of 21 May 2024. Following this contact the landlord acknowledged their escalation request on 22 May 2024.
  8. During this time, the resident contacted us to ask for our assistance in progressing their complaint. We emailed the landlord on 19 July 2024 to ask if it had already responded to the resident’s complaint, that it provides a copy of its last response. We also said if it had not yet done so it was to log a new complaint and provide a stage 1 response.
  9. However, instead of confirming it had already responded to the complaint at stage 1, and escalating the complaint to stage 2, the landlord provided another stage 1 on 2 August 2024. This resulted in a further unreasonable delay in the progress of the resident’s complaint through the landlord’s formal complaints process.
  10. In its final response of 14 November 2024, the landlord appropriately recognised the complaint was in fact escalated on 27 March 2024. It also appropriately said it was ‘sincerely sorry’ for the delay in providing its response, acknowledging it had failed to provide its services in accordance with its complaints policy. In recognition of these acknowledged failures the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation.
  11. Whilst we are satisfied £100 was proportionate to the failures acknowledged by the landlord, we are not satisfied this is sufficient to provide redress given the overall failures identified in this report. These include the landlord’s failure to recognise the resident’s email of 24 January 2024 as a formal complaint and its failure to recognise it had already issued a stage 1 response prior to issuing a second stage 1 on 2 August 2024.
  12. These additional failures have resulted in a finding of maladministration for which the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident an additional £100. This brings the total payable in respect of its handling of the complaint to £200.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by their neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident a total of £700 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £500 for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience to them as a result of its failures in relation to its handling of their reports of ASB. This includes the £50 previously offered, if this has not been paid. If it has, the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £450 ordered by us
      2. £200 for its handling of the associated complaint. This includes the £100 previously offered, if this has not been paid. If it has, the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £100 ordered by us
    3. review its overall handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in light of the failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to us what action it intends to take in order to ensure similar failings do not occur again going forward
    4. confirm compliance with the above orders.