London Borough of Barking and Dagenham — case 202431867

REPORT COMPLAINT 202431867 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 30 September 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 the landlord’s handling of: the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

the resident’s request for a property transfer. the associated complaint. Background The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord of a fourth-floor flat. The resident reported she has mental and physical health concerns. The resident’s young son is autistic. Dring 2023, the resident reported ASB against 2 neighbours who live in the same building. The resident initially raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB on 14 August 2023 and the landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 December 2023.

The Ombudsman investigated this complaint and issued a determination on 17 December 2024. The investigation considered the landlord’s handling of the ASB until its final complaint response in December 2023. The resident raised a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB on 18 September 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 October 2024, in which it said: the ASB team had been working in partnership with the police and other relevant services in trying to resolve the dispute.

the resident’s most recent report of noise nuisance and a man staring at her camera were not considered to be ASB. there was a live police investigation following an incident on 23 August 2024 in which a man damaged the resident’s camera, and the landlord would take appropriate action depending on the outcome of this investigation. the housing panel refused her request for a management transfer because there was no serious threat to life or limb based on the evidence provided.

it requested that the resident provided all evidence of the ASB dispute from the past 12 months so that it could review all the evidence and take appropriate action. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 November 2024 and said she wanted to raise a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. On 20 November 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 28 November 2024, the landlord said it was unable to escalate her complaint until she provided new evidence of ASB.

On 7 January 2025, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that the landlord was refusing to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said she had repeatedly reported harassment and submitted evidence to the landlord, but it had taken no action. In March 2025, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to ask it to issue a stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord said it had not received any new ASB diary sheets from the resident and there was no basis to review the case at stage 2 of the complaints process.

On 10 September 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman: police had attended multiple times and were concerned that the property was unsafe, but after speaking to the ASB officer, they became less concerned. the landlord told police the issues were a neighbour dispute, but the resident stated she was being targeted. she submitted an ASB log in June 2025 however, the landlord requested diary sheets. in order to resolve her complaint, the landlord should move her to a suitable property, taking into account her health concerns.

Assessment and findings Scope The Ombudsman issued a determination on the resident’s previous complaint, which investigated the landlord’s handling of the ASB during 2023. The Ombudsman will not investigate matters which we have already decided upon. As such, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the ASB from January 2024 until November 2024, when the landlord confirmed its position that it would not escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident requested to be moved to a different property due to the impact of the ASB on her mental and physical health and well-being.

The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, we would not order a landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations and its allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.

We can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s request under its management transfer policy, including if appropriate support had been provided. The resident raised concerns to us about staff conduct. This matter was not considered as part of the landlord’s complaint response and has therefore not progressed through its complaints process. We are therefore unable to consider this complaint about as part of this investigation. The resident has the option of raising a new complaint if she wishes to pursue this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy states that when a report of ASB is made, it should: complete a risk assessment to assess the risk (if any) the complainant may be at and their vulnerability. agree an action plan with the complainant to try to resolve the situation and put this in writing. refer children or vulnerable adults to its safeguarding procedure where it is felt that there is risk. The ASB policy states that after visiting the complainant, any witnesses, the other party and after considering any other evidence that exists, the housing officer must decide on the appropriate course of action and advise the complaint.

It lists various actions that can be considered, including: consult with ASB Coordinator good neighbour agreement and acceptable behaviour contract formal letter listing acceptable and unacceptable behaviour (if the above two actions are refused) written warning interview other party on council premises joint visit with police The Ombudsman acknowledges that the ASB incidents reported by the resident have caused, and continue to cause, her distress in the property. However, it is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible.

What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case. The evidence indicates that, on 2 January 2024, the resident reported incidents involving her neighbour that had occurred over the Christmas and New Year period. The landlord documented that it met with the police’s Safer Neighbourhood Team on 11 January 2024 to discuss the recent incidents.

This was an appropriate action and reflects the landlord took a multi-agency approach. However, there is no indication that the landlord visited the resident or provided an updated action plan as a result of these reports, as per its policy. On 22 January 2024, the resident reported that the ASB remained ongoing and she raised concerns that the ASB officer was ignoring her reports. She said her neighbour was issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW) the previous year, which they had breached on numerous occasions.

The landlord stated that there was no evidence to warrant taking any further action in relation to issuing a Community Protection Notice (CPN) to her neighbours. However, the evidence reflects that the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour on 25 January 2024 to discuss the reports made about noise and disturbances. The landlord took no further action under its ASB policy in relation to these reports. The resident sent us evidence of an email she received from the police in February 2024, in which the police officer informed her that they had visited her neighbour and offered ‘strong words of advice’ regarding ASB.

It is unclear what incident this related to. We would expect the landlord to maintain clear records of any ASB reports, as well as any communications with police. However, there are no such records from the landlord during February 2024. On 12 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had not received a response to her recent ASB reports. She said that ASB from 2 neighbours was ongoing. The absence of these records indicates a record keeping failing by the landlord.

The landlord advised the resident to continue to submit any new ASB evidence. However, it did not comment on the recent reports of ASB that the resident said she made, which it ought to have done. The landlord’s records reflect that the police attended the resident’s property on 21 March 2024 in relation to an incident that took place on 12 March 2024. Following this visit, the landlord discussed the case with the police, which was an appropriate action. The landlord and the police visited the resident on 27 March 2024 and issued a CPW in relation to the 12 March 2024 incident.

They also issued a CPN to her 2 neighbours in relation to reports by the resident and regarding an incident that was witnessed by police. We understand the resident disagreed with the decision to issue her a CPW. It is not our role to comment on whether this was reasonable. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord took positive action in response to her reports of ASB by working with the police and issuing CPNs to the 2 neighbours she complained about. On 18 May 2024, the resident reported that her neighbour physically attacked her.

The landlord’s notes indicate that it discussed this incident with police on 29 May 2024. On 3 June 2024, the landlord noted that this was a police matter, not an ASB matter. It said that there was therefore no need for it to start compiling a case file, but that it would continue to monitor the situation. The landlord also documented that the resident reported further ASB on 2 June 2024. It has not provided records of these reports to the Ombudsman. The landlord noted that these reports were also a police matter as they were an escalation from the 18 May 2024 incident and involved an allegation that threats were made.

It is clear that the resident’s reports involved a criminal allegation which required police investigation. However, landlords are still responsible for the continued management of an ASB case when partner agencies are involved. Landlords should also ensure they take appropriate steps to safeguard residents. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it undertook an updated risk assessment following any of the resident’s reports during 2024. Landlords should review risk assessments at appropriate intervals or when a resident notifies the landlord of further incidents.

The resident had reported a physical attack which indicates an escalation of the situation, and we would have expected it to complete an updated risk assessment in the circumstances. This was a failing by the landlord. The resident reported new instances of ASB on 10 July 2024 and 1 August 2024. In an email to the landlord on 1 August 2024, the resident said that prior to this incident, she had experienced ongoing threats, harassment and bullying from 2 neighbours. She said the situation had continued to get worse since the May 2024 incident.

The landlord responded to state that the incident was being investigated by the police as it was a criminal matter. It said it had investigated all incidents reported by the resident and taken appropriate action. The landlord has not evidenced that it continued to work collaboratively with the police during the investigation, and the outcome of the police investigation is unclear. The landlord ought to have communicated with the resident on conclusion of the investigation to advise whether it would take any action under its ASB policy.

On 2 August 2024, the landlord responded to the resident regarding her reports that a naked male had approached her door and that her upstairs neighbour had thrown multiple items onto her balcony. She also stated that a male associate of the neighbour had previously barricaded her into her corner. It is unclear when this incident took place. The landlord said it had viewed the footage she provided which showed a man opening the door wearing no clothes but did not show him approaching the resident’s door or acting in an antisocial manner.

On 12 August 2024, the landlord noted it had spoken to the police regarding this footage and that although it did not show the male attempting to target the resident, the police would visit the neighbour and give words of advice. In relation to the items dropped onto the balcony, the landlord noted that it spoke to the resident’s other neighbour who said a bottle was dropped accidentally. The landlord said that if the resident had any evidence to contradict this account, she should provide it.

The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her reports, which we acknowledge. It is our role to consider whether a landlord took appropriate action in response to reports of ASB, not to determine whether ASB took place. The landlord took appropriate action by viewing the evidence, discussing the report of the naked male with the police and speaking to the resident’s upstairs neighbour. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the police regarding the incident in which the resident alleged she was barricaded into a corner, which it ought to have done.

On 23 August 2024, the resident reported that a male damaged her doorbell camera with a hammer and tried to break into her property. The landlord noted that it discussed the incident with police on the same date, which was appropriate. However, it did not document details of this discussion. It is clear that this was a criminal matter and required a police investigation. However, there is again no evidence to indicate that the landlord completed a risk assessment. It is noted that the landlord offered the resident alternative temporary accommodation, which was reasonable.

However, the resident declined to stay in the alternative accommodation due to the proximity to her property and concerns that it was not suitable due to health issues. On 30 August 2024, the resident sent a video recording to the landlord which she said evidenced that her neighbour was responsible for organising the attempted break-in. The landlord has not provided evidence that it responded to the resident or that it reviewed the footage. In its stage 1 response, dated 2 October 2024, it said the police were investigating the incident and it would take action depending on the outcome of the police investigation.

Again, the outcome of the investigation is unclear. While it is clear that the incident was a criminal matter, the landlord still ought to have given consideration to the resident’s allegation that her neighbour was responsible in order to assess whether it was safe for her to remain in her property. In its management transfer outcome letter dated 11 September 2024, the landlord said that considerable work had already been done to manage the ASB issues, but to ensure that they were permanently resolved, it would undertake a review of the ASB.

It asked the resident to provide evidence to support her ASB reports and said it would consider the evidence and identify recommendations and actions which would be communicated back to all parties. It asked the resident to provide the evidence within 7 days. The resident responded to state that she had provided this evidence on numerous occasions. In a letter to the resident on 18 November 2024, the landlord said it had given the resident an additional 7 days to provide this evidence but no response was received and the record was closed.

The resident reiterated that she had provided substantial evidence and listed a summary of key incidents and evidence. On 28 November 2024, the landlord told the resident that it was asking for new evidence only. The decision to conduct a review of the ASB in order to identify ways to reach a long-term solution was reasonable. However, the landlord’s comments indicate that it was only willing to conduct the ASB case review if the resident provided new evidence. This was an unreasonable approach and one that was unfair on the resident, given that she had previously provided evidence to support her ASB allegations.

In summary, the landlord took various steps that were appropriate in response to the resident’s reports and it demonstrated that it took a multi–agency approach by communicating and working with the police to take action under its ASB policy. It issued warnings to 2 of the resident’s neighbours in conjunction with the police which evidences it took some robust and proportionate action. However, there were also failings by the landlord. The landlord’s record keeping was poor and it failed to demonstrate that it acted in a reasonable and proportionate manner in response to the resident’s reports, or that it took into account the history of the case.

The necessity for a police investigation indicates an escalation of the ASB issues, and the landlord was responsible for continuing to take action, or at least monitor the case, while the police investigations were ongoing. The landlord’s refusal to take any action once an issue became a police matter and its insistence that only new ASB reports would be of any value suggests that its overall approach was not customer focused. The landlord did not evidence that it completed updated ASB action plans following any of the resident’s reports during 2024, in accordance with its ASB policy.

Further, there is no evidence it conducted risk assessments when the resident reported new ASB issues, or that it considered what actions, if any, it needed to take to safeguard the resident and her child, particularly given the reported vulnerabilities. The failings identified amount to maladministration. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. The landlord’s failure to take a customer focussed approach and to clearly communicate about her ASB reports led the resident to feel it was not taking sufficient steps to deal with the ASB or to consider the vulnerabilities in the property.

We have made an order below for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident in order to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused. We have made a further order for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns and open a new ASB case, if required. The landlord should re-consider whether it will conduct a review of the ASB in order to assess whether any further action can be taken to resolve the issues. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

The landlord’s management transfer policy states that there are 3 circumstances where a management transfer would apply. These are: threats to life and limb which occurs when a tenant is the victim of a threat or physical harm. escalating threats to a person which occurs when there is a continuous pattern of more severe threats to the applicant. properties in need of major work. The policy states that applicants are required to prove that they qualify for a management transfer under one of the above criteria, and applicants will be required to provide supporting evidence or references from other professional people.

It the states that the tenancy services manager will decide if the tenant can be given management transfer status. If the management transfer is denied, the landlord will write to the tenant and give the reasons why and outline what other courses of action they may wish to consider. The policy states that if the application for a management transfer is rejected, the applicant will be able to request an appeal and the decision will be provided within 14 days. The evidence indicates that the resident requested management transfers in March, June and August 2024.

The resident said that the property was not safe for her and her son’s mental health and wellbeing. The case was presented to the housing panel on each occasion and the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it had decided there was no threat to life or limb, and so the criteria for a management transfer had not been met. Within its decision letters following the resident’s March and June 2024 requests to be moved, the landlord did not expand any further on its reasoning for refusing her transfer request.

The landlord should have provided clear details of its considerations so that the resident could properly understand the decisions reached. Following her August 2024 request, the landlord wrote to the resident on the same date and advised that her request was refused as the police did not provide any evidence that related to her home being unsafe. The landlord set out alternative options for rehousing, which was appropriate. The resident appealed the August 2024 outcome and the landlord issued its decision on 11 September 2024.

It said it was unable to uphold her appeal. The landlord said it had considered the information the resident had provided in support of her appeal. It said that there was no evidence that the resident’s neighbour was connected to the attempted break-in on 23 August 2024. It said that without either identification of a suspect or a confirmation that the incident was connected to her neighbours, it was not possible to confirm how any future risk could be managed and therefore if a move was necessary.

We acknowledge the resident’s ongoing concerns about remaining in the property and that she feels it is unsafe for her and her son to live there. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination regarding whether a landlord should approve a resident to for a management transfer. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and considered the evidence provided by the resident. As such, there is no indication of a failing regarding the resident’s request for a managed move.

The Ombudsman understands that the resident made a further management transfer request in May 2025, which the landlord again refused. In September 2025, the resident told us that a police officer had recently confirmed it was not safe for her to remain in the property, but the housing panel had refused her request. She said she had asked the landlord to explain why the management transfer was refused despite police support and for it to disclose who sits on the housing panel.

The resident said the landlord had not responded to her concerns. The resident also provided evidence to reflect that she again asked the landlord to move her in September 2025. The 2025 management transfer requests are out the scope of this investigation. However, we have made a recommendation below for the landlord to respond to the resident’s specific concerns and queries. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 responses within a further 10 working days.

The landlord will respond to escalation requests in 5 working days and respond at stage 2 within 30 working days. The policy states there are some circumstances in which the landlord will decide it not appropriate to review the complaint further and, in these circumstances, it will provide the resident a response with reasons as to why this is the case. The policy provides a list of complaints that cannot be considered under its complaints policy, including matters that were over 12 months old or matters that had previously been considered under the complaints policy.

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the resident had complained on 18 September 2024. It did not provide the Ombudsman a copy of the complaint, indicating further record keeping concerns. It said the resident’s management transfer request and following an appeal by the resident, the landlord had asked her to send all evidence of the ASB dispute for the past 12 months so that it could review all evidence and take appropriate action. On 7 November 2024, the resident told the landlord she wanted to make a new complaint that it had taken no formal action against her neighbours.

She said she had consistently updated the landlord and reported all incidents. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2024 and said it had asked her to provide evidence of the ASB over the previous 12-month period on 11 September and 2 October 2024, and the resident had not responded. On 20 November 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord with a summary of key incidents and said she was again requesting a stage 2 response. The landlord responded and stated it was unable to escalate her complaint until she provided the requested evidence or advised that she had no new evidence to submit.

The landlord said it was not asking the resident to re-submit evidence, but to submit any new evidence she had, including diary sheets. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman and we contacted the landlord in March 2025 and asked it to provide a final complaint response to the resident. On 18 March 2025, the landlord said that, in October 2024, it gave the resident advice on reporting noise nuisance but she had not sent any new completed diary sheets, and so there was no basis to review the case at stage 2.

From the evidence provided, it is clear that the resident wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and her request for a management transfer. The landlord had issued its final response to the resident’s previous complaint in December 2023, and so none of the events that took place in 2024 were considered as part of the first complaint. It is clear that the resident had made multiple reports of ASB during 2024 and provided supporting evidence to the landlord.

The landlord’s reason for not escalating the complaint to stage 2 was not in accordance with its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to escalate the complaint on the basis that the resident had not provided new evidence. The complaints process allows residents to complain about how their landlord has handled an issue. As such, the landlord ought to have escalated the complaint and provided a final response in relation to its handling of the ASB reports during 2024.

This was a failing by the landlord that amounts to maladministration. The landlord’s decision adversely affected the resident as her complaint was not properly progressed through the complaints process, and she incurred time and trouble raising this through the Ombudsman. Further, there were concerns regarding the landlord’s ASB responses as highlighted in this investigation, and the landlord did not take the opportunity to identify these failures as part of the complaints process.

We have made an order below for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident in recognition of the impact of its poor complaint handling. This amount of compensation is sufficient to reflect any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the landlord’s refusal to progress the complaint through its complaints process, as well as time and trouble she incurred in pursuing the complaint with both the landlord and the Ombudsman. Determination In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling. Orders and recommendations Orders Within 4 weeks, the landlord must: pay the resident a total of £500, made up as follows. £300 for its handling of the ASB reports.

£200 for complaint handling. contact the resident regarding her ASB reports and decide whether a new ASB case should be opened, and clarify this with the resident. The landlord should re-consider whether it will conduct a review of the ASB in order to assess whether any further action can be taken to resolve the issues. The landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its decision. If it decides to conduct a review, it should explain what actions it will take.

The landlord should clearly explain its rationale if it decides not to carry out the ASB review. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the timeframe stipulated. Recommendations It is recommended that the landlord: conducts staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of property inspections. writes to the resident regarding her most recent management transfer request and advise what, if any, advice it obtained from police and answer her queries regarding the housing panel.