Haringey Council (202004508)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004508

Haringey Council

31 March 2021

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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about noise from taps and creaking floorboards in her neighbours flat prior to June 2016.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in September 2020 of issues arising with her neighbour regarding the maintenance and sharing of the front garden.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in October 2020 of noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property, including banging from a tap and her neighbour banging on his floor.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour between 5 November 2019 and 29 July 2020.
5. The landlord’s actions following reports of a water supply issue in her neighbour’s property on 26 November 2019.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about noise from taps and

creaking floorboards in her neighbours flat prior to June 2016.

Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion; seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
The resident first complained to the landlord about noise from taps and creaking floorboards in her neighbours flat on 20 July 2015. The resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process in December 2015. The resident then raised a further complaint about the same issues on 30 March 2016. The landlord issued its final response to this complaint in June 2016. Both complaints were referred to the Ombudsman and a determination of no service failure was issued in November 2017 (Case reference 201608166).
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about noise from taps and creaking floorboards in her neighbours flat in July 2015, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in September 2020 of issues arising with her neighbour regarding the maintenance and sharing of the front garden.

And

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in October 2020 of noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property, including banging from a tap and her neighbour banging on his floor.

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
On 16 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that whenever she tries to maintain the front garden, her neighbour always complains that she is standing right outside his front window. The resident also complained about the maintenance of her neighbour’s back garden.
In October 2020, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property, including banging from a taps and noise from her neighbour banging on his floor.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports in September 2020 of issues arising with her neighbour regarding the maintenance and sharing of the front garden and the landlord’s response to her reports in October 2020 of noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property, including banging from a tap and her neighbour banging on his floor are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This is because there is no evidence that these matters have exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process and therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, have not been included in this investigation.

Background and summary of events.

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The tenancy commenced on 18 June 2012. The property is a one bedroom, third floor flat in a converted house, with a garden.
On 5 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to report ASB by her neighbour. The resident said that on 2 November 2019, her neighbour told her that he did not want her going into his property. The resident said that she ignored her neighbour and he left the property. The resident said that she had started to speak to another neighbour when he came back and was ‘‘hostile’’ and ‘‘intimidating’’ towards her. The resident said that she had reported the incident to the police and was waiting for the Police’s Safer Neighbourhood team to contact her.
On 10 December 2019, the resident emailed to inform the landlord that on the evening of 26 November 2019, an emergency plumber called at her property because her neighbour had reported having no water supply. The resident said that the emergency plumber had called unannounced and that when she had questioned letting the plumber into her property, their manager had threatened to call the police and ‘‘burst’’ into her home if she did not agree to access. The resident said that she contacted the water supplier and they confirmed the water loss was due to a burst water pipe. The resident also said that she overheard her neighbour make accusation to the plumbers about her turning his water supply off. The resident asked the landlord what can be done to prevent her neighbour repeating such allegations, describing the experience as ‘‘disturbing, unsettling and upsetting’’.
The landlord contacted the resident the following day to advise that it would contact her neighbour regarding her report.
On 13 December 2019, the resident made further reports of ASB by her neighbour. The resident reported that her neighbour had been ‘‘verbally aggressive and rude’’ in the communal corridor to the cleaners. The resident said that it was not acceptable for her neighbour to behave in that way to people he does not want to see in a property that has a communal corridor and communal entrance area.
On 10 January 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had contacted her neighbour about his allegations that she was responsible for the loss of water to his property. The landlord also confirmed that it had spoken to her neighbour regarding his behaviour towards the cleaners. The landlord said that it had not received contact from the police about her neighbour and asked her not to have any contact with him.
On 13 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm their conversation earlier that day regarding her neighbour and her request for the landlord to tell her neighbour not to take any more photographs of her at the property or surrounding area and to stop his loitering in the communal doorway and stairwell when she returns home. The resident said that he had done it three times in December 2019.
On 14 January 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about the attendance of emergency plumbers at her property on 26 November 2019, the emergency plumber’s manager’s call to her in which she said that manager made an ‘‘aggressive threat’’ to call the police if she did not agree to access within the next 20 minutes. The resident also asked the landlord what can be done to prevent her neighbour repeating his allegations that she had turned his water off. The resident said that in January 2019, her neighbour had also reported that she had turned off his water supply but, following an investigation, the landlord had found his allegation to be without substance and had advised her neighbour not to unnecessarily report such matters again. The resident also complained about her neighbour being verbally aggressive to the cleaners, taking photographs of her, waiting outside the communal entrance and blocking her access to her home, and standing in the stairwell when she is leaving or entering her flat.
On 22 January 2020, the resident made further reports to the landlord about her neighbour staring at her whilst repeatedly looking through his mail. Following the resident’s reports the landlord advised the resident to continue to avoid talking or responding to her neighbour. The landlord said it had given her neighbour the same advice when it spoke to him the previous day.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 28 January 2020.
1. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused during its investigation of the loss of water supply in her neighbour’s property. The landlord also advised that it had interviewed the call out manager and, whilst he ‘‘strongly refuted’’ the resident’s version of events, he nevertheless ‘‘expressed his regret at the misunderstanding and for undue stress this may have caused’’. The landlord explained that it had sought to gain access to establish if the cause of the water supply issue in the neighbouring flat was within her property. The landlord said that the source of the issue was subsequently discovered to be an operative accidentally turning off the water supply in a void flat. The landlord expressed its ‘‘sincerest apologies’’ for the misunderstanding and inconvenience this caused. The landlord also thanked the resident for her cooperation and assistance in helping it go through the process of elimination to resolving the matter.
2. With regards to the resident’s complaint about ASB by her neighbour. The landlord confirmed that there had been both allegation and counter allegations by both residents regarding this matter, which the landlord had investigated and concluded that no further action could be taken. The landlord said that it had recently spoken to the resident about this matter and informed her that her neighbour will not make any further allegation against her.
On 30 January 2020, the resident sent the landlord two recordings of her neighbour swearing just before he left the property. The resident said that the police had advised her to record any verbal communication between her and her neighbour. The landlord emailed the resident back on 19 February 2020 to advise the resident that if the police had advised her to make such recordings, she should pass the recordings to the police.
On 9 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s Stage 1 response. The resident said that the landlord was treating her concerns as a case of one person’s word against another. The resident said that despite the landlord speaking to her neighbour in early 2019 about his behaviour, he had not stopped subjecting her to ‘‘verbal aggression’’. The resident said that she felt like she was having to change her behaviour and to consider moving rather her neighbour being asked to do so. The resident said that she would like the landlord to advise her neighbour that causing a nuisance to his neighbours was a breach of his tenancy agreement and for the landlord to take any action necessary to prevent him harassing her.
On 22 July 2020, the resident emailed a further report to the landlord of her neighbour was using the communal stairwell to ‘‘harass and intimidate her’’. The resident said that on 20 July 2020, her neighbour walked down the stairs when she was locking her flat door to go out, commented on the way she locked the door and continued to stand in the lower stairwell while she was leaving the property. The resident said that the police had recently informed her that her neighbour had not agreed to the suggested police mediation but there would be a meeting arranged, when possible depending on coronavirus restrictions, for her, the police and the landlord to discuss her concerns about her neighbour.
The landlord responded the same day to say that it was sorry that the resident was still experiencing ‘‘this unusual behaviour’’ and that it would contact her neighbour to inform him that he should not make any contact with her and to remind him of the terms and conditions of his tenancy. The landlord also said that it had received contact from the Police to advise that the Police would be arranging mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
The landlord issued its final response on 29 July 2020. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, saying that it had fully investigated and addressed the resident’s concerns, it had correctly followed the appropriate procedures and that further investigation would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
1. The landlord referred to the resident’s comments about the landlord speaking to her neighbour in 2019 following her report that her neighbour had accused her of reducing the flow of water into his bathroom. The landlord said that it was fully aware that the resident cannot turn off the water supply to her neighbours flat from her property. However, were there to be any reports related to the same issue in the future, all avenues would need to be investigated, which may include investigating the supply in the resident’s property.
2. The landlord said that it had investigated the resident’s report and discussed the issues with the police, and that it had been advised by the police that the allegations were unfounded. The landlord did however say that both organisations agree that there appears to be animosity between both parties and so it had been agreed that the best way forward would be to arranging mediation between the resident and her neighbour. The landlord said that it understood both the resident and her neighbour had agreed to mediation with the landlord and the police, at different times, on dates which were yet to be determined.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman’s role is also to consider whether the landlord’s complaint response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreements oblige its tenants, their households and their visitors to behave correctly and responsibly and to not be involved in any criminal offences or illegal activities at its properties or in the surrounding areas. They were also required to not cause any disturbance, harassment, annoyance or nuisance to anyone in their local areas.
The landlord’s Anti-social behaviour policy defines ASB as ‘‘the range of behaviours from low-level nuisance to serious harassment, which can damage the quality of life and interfere with the ability of people to use and enjoy their home or community.” The policy goes on to state that how each case is handled will vary on the specific circumstances of the victim and the perpetrator.
For nuisance cases where no corroborative evidence can be ascertained (i.e. one-on-one complaints), the policy states that the landlord may refer complainants and the alleged perpetrator to independent Mediation.
The policy also describes a number of other remedies that can be taken by the landlord in such cases including:
1. Issuing a warning letter regarding ASB and/or breach of the tenancy agreement
2. Get perpetrators to sigh and Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) with the aim of improving their behaviour.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the

same neighbour between 5 November 2019 and 29 July 2020.

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the complainant and his neighbours. Rather it has been to assess the landlord’s response to the reports and to the complainant’s subsequent complaint with reference to its own policies as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given all the circumstances of the case.
The resident has complained that she has been reporting ASB by her neighbour to the landlord for many years and the landlord has failed to resolve the issue. The resident has said that the landlord has written to her neighbour on many occasions but the ASB has continued. The resident has said that something needed to be put in place to prevent her neighbour continuing to cause her a nuisance.
Whilst it is clear that there is a history of allegations and counter allegation of ASB by the resident and her neighbour. This investigation has covered the matters raised by the resident in her complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2020 for which the landlord issued its final response to on 29 July 2020.
This service has had sight of six reports made by the resident during this time regarding ASB by her neighbour, 5 November 2019, 13 December 2019, 13 January 2020, 22 January 2020, 30 January 2020 and 22 July 2020. The resident reported that her neighbour had was ‘‘hostile’’ and ‘‘intimidating’’ towards her, staring at her in the corridor, taking photos of her, blocking her access to her home, and standing in the stairwell when she is leaving or entering her flat.
On 10 December 2019, the resident also reported that her neighbour had made allegations about her turning off his water supply on 26 November 2019.
As the allegations reported by the resident fell within the landlord’s definition of ASB and it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified. This it did by discussing the resident’s reports with her and both speaking and writing to the resident’s neighbour about their reported behaviour after each of the reports made by the resident.
In cases of ASB, landlords have a number of powers available to them in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and enforcement action under the tenancy terms. These include injunctions and possession orders. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of anti-social behaviour, it requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support any such formal action. In this case as the police had advised the landlord that there was a lack of corroborated evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not take any formal action against her neighbour that that time.
Nevertheless, the landlord took a reasonable approach in an attempt to resolve the issues and prevent the matter escalating further. Given the animosity between both parties, the landlord discussed the case with the police and it was agreed that the best way forward would be mediation. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure which states that the landlord will work in partnership with other agencies, and that for nuisance cases where no corroborative evidence can be ascertained i.e. one-on-one complaints, it may refer the resident and the alleged perpetrator to independent Mediation.
It has been noted that the resident has said that mediation has been offered in the past but had not been successful. Whilst it is unfortunate that that was the case, it should not prevent mediation being considered again given that the ASB has continued.
It has also been noted that in the resident’s previous complaint to the landlord, determined by this service on 13 March 2019 (Case reference 201809741), an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) was discussed but not pursued at that time. Again, whilst it is unfortunate that that was the case, it should not prevent an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC being considered again given that the ASB has continued.

The landlord’s actions following reports of a water supply issue in her neighbour’s

property on 26 November 2019

The resident complained about the landlord knocking on her door on the evening of 26 November 2019, following a report by her neighbour that he had lost his water supply. The resident complained that when she initially refused access, the emergency plumber’s manager ‘‘threatened’’ her with calling the police and forcing entry to her property.
Following the resident’s reports it was appropriate for the landlord to interview the emergency plumber’s manager in order to gain an understanding of their version of events on the evening of 26 November 2019. Having carried out the interview the landlord advised the resident that the manager strongly refuted her allegations but nevertheless apologised for any misunderstanding and any undue stress this may have caused her.
Given the resident’s concerns that her neighbour had alleged that she had been responsible for the loss of his water supply it was appropriate for the landlord to reassure the resident by providing an explanation of why the emergency plumber had called at her property, which it did in its Stage 1 response.
Given its repair obligations, it was also reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that if there were to be a loss of water supply in the future it would need to investigate all avenues, which may include investigating the supply in her property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour between 5 November 2019 and 29 July 2020.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its actions following reports of a water supply issue in her neighbour’s property on 26 November 2019.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to seek to resolve the issues between both parties. This it did by acknowledging the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour, writing to and discussing his behaviour with him, and working in liaison with the police to seek a mediated solution to the issues between both parties.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the events relating to the loss of water in her neighbour’s flat and her allegation that the manager of the emergency plumbers threatened her. The landlord interviewed the manager, and whilst the manager refuted the resident’s allegations an apology was made for any misunderstanding and any undue stress this may have caused her.