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

London Borough of Wandsworth (202401648)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401648

Wandsworth Council

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a ground floor flat within a block. The landlord is a council. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he has asthma, but the landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. In February 2020 the landlord received reports of alleged ASB, and drug use, being caused by the grandson (the first grandson) of a neighbouring resident of a ground floor flat within the block. The landlord wrote to the neighbour and visited her to discuss the ASB. In March 2020 it contacted the police, and the police provided information about the grandson who had been placed to stay with the neighbour by Social Services. Social Services told the landlord that the grandson had moved with their help to a new address on 9 March 2020. The landlord asked its solicitors to consider applying for an injunction against the grandson and sent an injunction warning letter to him at his new address.
  3. On 3 March 2022 the landlord received an anonymous report that there was a smell of drugs coming from the neighbour’s flat, and that people were using the balcony as an entry and exit point. The resident, and other residents, emailed the landlord, local councillor and MP, on 25 May 2022 to raise concerns about drug dealing and asked for CCTV to be installed. In an internal email the landlord said it had not received any reports of ASB from April 2020 until March 2022. It requested information from the police, who said they had received reports of drug activity. It made a further information request on 3 August 2022 and the police said it had executed a drugs warrant at the neighbour’s flat on 28 July 2022. It said it had found drugs and a sword but had made no arrests. The landlord spoke to the police on 12 August 2022 about their concerns about a different grandson (the second grandson). The landlord called the neighbour, who denied the ASB allegations, but did say the second grandson was staying with her temporarily.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2022 about repairs and ASB. He also reported the second grandson and others were keeping dogs and intimidating people outside the block to the council’s dog control service. On 20 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it said it was working with the police. It encouraged him, and had written to other residents to encourage them, to report drug activity to the police. He emailed the landlord the same day about the incident he reported to the council. The landlord replied asking for more information and asked if he had reported this to the police as criminal activity. It also explained the council’s enforcement powers regarding dogs under council byelaws.
  5. On 31 May 2023 the police and the landlord discussed that the second grandson had been bailed to the neighbour’s flat. The police were looking into whether he could be bailed to a different address but had not found anywhere suitable. In June 2023 the landlord submitted further information requests to the police, who provided information on reports of drug usage they had received. It also asked the resident to provide further details about ASB occurring which he did. It said it would arrange an occupancy check and 14-day observation of the area around the neighbour’s flat, which it did. The landlord and police continued to speak about the situation, each asking what the other was doing to resolve it. The landlord wrote to the neighbour and told her to remove her dogs from her flat. It spoke to her on 22 November 2023, and she confirmed she had removed the dogs, and that the second grandson was no longer living with her.
  6. The resident emailed his MP on 2 April 2024 to report that drug use and dealing had started again at the neighbour’s flat. He said there was a drug deal the previous night on the balcony. The MP emailed the landlord and asked it to look into the matter on 16 April 2024. Between 17 and 19 April 2024 the resident and the landlord exchanged emails. The resident said the landlord was not taking any action, drug use and dealing was still going on, and the neighbour now had a big dog. It said the second grandson had moved out in August 2023 and ask for more details about his allegations. It contacted the police, who said they had not received any reports since the second grandson had moved out. The landlord also sent a warning letter to the neighbour and spoke to her on 26 April 2024. On 11 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. There having been ASB, drug usage and dealing from the neighbour’s flat since 2020 and the landlord had not taken definitive action to remove the neighbour.
    2. Having concerns for the neighbour, as she was elderly and housebound.
    3. The landlord having taken the neighbour’s side to the detriment of all other residents.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. It provided its stage 1 response on 24 June 2024, in which it:
    1. Set out a chronology of events, including that the second grandson was convicted at the magistrates’ court of breaching council byelaws regarding dogs on 18 October 2023.
    2. Concluded it had investigated all reports of ASB and had taken appropriate action. It said it had worked with the police and Social Services regarding the first grandson and had tried to get the second grandson’s bail address changed. However, it explained it had no control over the courts or the actions the police took or did not take.
    3. Explained it could take tenancy action when appropriate and proportionate to do so. It did not uphold the complaint.
  8. On 27 June 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He repeated his concerns about the landlord’s lack of action, referring to an incorrect address, and said there was still a dog at the neighbour’s flat. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 28 June 2024. It provided its stage 2 response on 17 July 2024, in which it:
    1. Apologised for referring to an incorrect address and explained this was a typo. However, this did not change the outcome, and it did not uphold the complaint.
    2. Said it had completed the 14-day observation, and had entered the block on other occasions, but did not observe anything. It also said the dog it had seen present was not considered dangerous under the Dangerous Dogs Act, but the council’s dog control team would visit the neighbour to investigate further.
    3. Set out the actions it had taken, including considering injunctions, and had worked with the police. However, it said it was limited in its actions by court ordered bail conditions. It also explained it could not remove tenants without a court order, and its actions had to be proportionate and appropriate.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2024 to confirm the council’s dog control team had visited the neighbour. It confirmed it was a different dog present to the one reported and gave permission for it to remain. Between 11 September 2024 and 8 October 2024 the resident reported the neighbour’s family or guests using the balcony to enter and exit. The police viewed the resident’s CCTV footage but said no crimes had taken place. The landlord wrote to the neighbour to advise against using the balcony in this way.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord has not been asked to provide a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. It is standard industry practice for tenancy agreements to include clauses prohibiting the causing of ASB by household members and guests. The resident’s lease contains similar clauses. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as per the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is conduct which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, nuisance or annoyance.
  2. Under its policy the landlord will assess the severity of the ASB reported and will deal with it based on this. However, it will only carry out a risk assessment if there is a high risk of harm or vulnerable resident. When ASB was reported in 2020 there is no evidence of who reported it, or whether the landlord followed its policy regarding its initial contact with the person reporting, or whether it carried out a risk assessment. This is a record keeping failing. However, the landlord promptly spoke to and visited the neighbour to warn about the reported ASB. It established that the alleged perpetrator was the first grandson, and not the elderly resident. It contacted the police in line with its policy and worked with them and Social Services to have the first grandson’s address changed, which it achieved promptly. It also considered an injunction and took advice from its solicitors, again in line with its policy. The landlord’s actions were effective, and it did not receive any further ASB reports for nearly 2 years.
  3. When the landlord received an anonymous ASB report in March 2022, it is not clear what if any action it took, which is a failing. Under its policy, it should have reassured the person reporting that they could remain anonymous, but that it may limit the landlord’s actions and communication. The landlord should have also contacted the neighbour about the allegations. However, when the resident reported ASB, via his MP, in May 2022 the landlord started to investigate. It failed to contact the resident to have a conversation about the reports as per its policy. It therefore did not discuss what it could and could not do, how the resident could gather evidence, level of contact, or ask about any vulnerabilities, which was a failing.
  4. The landlord did contact the police, who provided information, but took no action which was a failing. It correctly contacted the police again following its drugs raid and it correctly contacted the neighbour about the situation. Within its response to the first stage 1 complaint, it appropriately directed the resident, and others, to report crime to the police. It was reasonable for it to do so and to continue to rely on the police to take the lead on criminal activity. However, it failed to recognise that it had not followed its ASB policy regarding contact with the resident.
  5. There is no evidence the landlord took further action, aside from a note on a joint professionals meeting in September 2022 when it discovered that the second grandson, suspected of causing the ASB, had been bailed to the neighbour’s address. There is no evidence of further reports of ASB, or actions taken by the landlord until May 2023. It is not clear when or if it closed the case, and its policy does not include a process for case closure which would have been helpful. It discussed with the police trying to have the bail conditions changed. The landlord had again determined that the alleged ASB was not being caused by the elderly resident, but by the second grandson, who had to live at the address by court order. It therefore could not take any legal action to remove him. It did however arrange a watch to try to gather further evidence, and told the resident to remove her dogs, which was solution focused. There were no further reports of ASB, and the landlord checked the resident had complied with the requirement, which she had.
  6. When the resident reported ASB in April 2024, via his MP, the landlord contacted him to request further information in line with its policy. It contacted the police and sent a warning letter to the neighbour and spoke to her about the allegations, in line with its policy. However, it failed to contact the resident as it should have under its policy as the person reporting ASB.
  7. Within its stage 1 response to the second stage 1 complaint the landlord correctly explained the actions it had taken. It also provided a frank explanation of the difficult situation it had been in regarding the second grandson’s bail conditions, over which it had no control. It had correctly expressed its concerns to the police but could not intervene with the criminal proceedings. It explained it had taken appropriate and proportionate action but could not say more due to data protection. It repeated its position and explained it further in its stage 2 response. However, it failed to recognise its lack of contact with the resident, and that it had not followed its policy regarding the initial conversation it should have had with him.
  8. The landlord took action when it could to issue warnings and enforce tenancy conditions around the keeping of dogs. It also followed up on this after its stage 2 response as promised and worked in partnership with the council’s dog control service. It carried out partnership working with the police and Social Services to resolve the ASB issues allegedly caused by the first grandson promptly. It contacted the neighbour and warned her about the ASB allegations regarding the second grandson and worked with the police in line with its policy. It could not take legal action to remove him due to the court ordered bail condition, and it had no authority or jurisdiction over this. Equally it could not take action regarding alleged criminal activity as this was the police’s responsibility. It did correctly try to gather evidence but did not find any. However, it did not follow its policy around contact and communication with the resident.
  9. Regarding the resident’s complaint that the landlord had not taken action to remove the neighbour this would have been very difficult for it to justify. The landlord did consider its legal options. However, it is a legal requirement that its actions were proportionate and reasonable. To determine this the landlord had to consider the neighbour’s circumstances and whether it could justifiably commence legal proceedings against her. It was open to the landlord to consider this not to be proportionate and its decision was reasonable based on her circumstances.
  10. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he has asthma, and the smell and smoke from drug usage has caused his asthma to get worse. Had the landlord had the initial conversations with him, following his reports of ASB, it could have asked him about any vulnerabilities. It could then have considered these.
  11. While the landlord took what actions it could, its lack of communication with the resident meant it did not follow its ASB policy. It did not complete the initial conversations and there is also no evidence it provided regular updates as required under its policy or agreed a timeframe for updates. There is also no evidence it asked him to keep a diary or record of ASB or considered his request for CCTV. Due to this there was maladministration. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to the resident, for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

  1. When the resident raised his second stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it the same day, in line with its complaints policy timeframe. It provided its response within its 10-working day policy timeframe. However, it failed to identify where it had not followed its ASB policy. This meant it did not put things right or learn from outcomes, 2 of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within its 2-working day policy timeframe. It provided its stage 2 response after 14 working days, in line with its 20-working day timeframe. Its response again failed to identify its failings to follow its ASB policy. There was maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling his reports of ASB.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider adding a process to its ASB policy on what actions it will take when it closes an ASB case. This could include writing to the resident reporting ASB to inform them or ask for any comments before closing the case.