Haringey Council (202101167)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101167

Haringey Council

28 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a flat within a block. The resident is represented in the complaint by her daughter.
  2. On 10 April 2021, the resident reported to the landlord’s tenancy management team that the block was subject to serious ASB from intruders who forced entry into the building by kicking the communal front door open. She said that they hid drugs in the communal meter cupboards which were not locked and smoked marijuana whilst creating a noise nuisance. The resident highlighted her health and age vulnerabilities and relayed that she had reported the issue to the landlord and the police on numerous occasions but it was still unresolved.
  3. The resident noted that the landlord had repaired the front communal door several times but the intruders kicked it open each time, which occurred at any time during the early hours. She said that she had suggested to its repairs team to change the door so that it opened outwards to prevent it being kicked open. The resident said that she was unhappy that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously and expressed concern over the effect on her health from the drug fumes. She added that during the previous week the intruders lit a fire in the building.
  4. The resident relayed that the other residents of the block were “all too scared to say anything” due to the intruders sometimes numbering ten to fifteen people. The intrusions were causing her to be concerned for her safety and the security of her property and she was unhappy that her offer of putting up CCTV was denied due to privacy concerns.
  5. The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 15 April 2021 in which she repeated her concerns about the ASB and that it appeared to be taking no action to address this. She wanted it to:
    1. Replace the front communal door or change it so that it opened outwards to prevent it being kicked open. She highlighted that each time the door was kicked open it took weeks for the landlord to repair it.
    2. Install CCTV in the building as she had her neighbours were concerned for their safety and security.
  6. The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 April 2021, and confirmed to her by email that day the matters they had discussed. It relayed that it had forwarded her report onto its ASB team to add to its existing investigation and had asked them to contact her. The landlord also confirmed it had passed her suggestion for the front communal door to open outwards to its engineering team to consider.
  7. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 22 and 23 April showed that the resident’s report had been added to an existing ASB investigation into the intruders. This also showed that it could not alter the front communal door to open outwards as this would contravene health and safety regulations due to the door opening onto a step. The landlord relayed this to the resident on 23 April 2021.
  8. On 25 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to dispute that the front communal door could not be altered to open outwards, contending that previous doors in the block had been installed to open outwards. She provided photographs of the distance between the step and the door and questioned its interpretation of health and safety regulation.
  9. The resident asked how the landlord was planning to resolve the reported ASB, noting that it had refused to allow the installation of CCTV or metal grilled doors. She contended that repeatedly repairing the communal front door would not resolve the ASB. The resident highlighted the vulnerability of the residents of the building who were aged between 65 and 90 years old and relayed that the situation was causing her anxiety and sleeplessness. She pointed out that the communal front door had yet to be repaired after a month and the communal cupboards were still insecure, allowing anyone to access both.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2021 to acknowledge that it had agreed to install CCTV in the block. She reported that the communal front door was yet to be repaired and the ASB continued. The resident informed the landlord that she had needed to make seven calls to the police about the ASB in the last week.
  11. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 30 April 2021 in which it partially upheld her complaint. It confirmed that its review of previous inspection reports found that the door did not need to be replaced. The landlord relayed that the communal front door had been inspected on 21 April 2021 and the door was fully repaired on 29 April 2021. It said that it was monitoring the ASB situation and was considering how it may prevent access to the intruders through the communal front door; in the meantime, it asked the resident to report any further incidents to itself or the police as appropriate.  
  12. On 5 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on its installation of CCTV at the property; she expressed frustration with being passed from person to person without receiving an answer. She informed it that the ASB she had previously reported continued and provided photographs and video of the intruders. The resident said that the ASB was worsening and was causing her anxiety and sleeplessness. She asked the landlord to provide information on how it was combating the ASB and asserted that repeatedly repairing the communal doors was not resolving the situation when the door could be kicked open again. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 May 2021 to escalate her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. She again asked it what it was doing to address the ASB, noting that it did not provide any information about this in its stage one complaint response. The resident raised the following questions:
    1. She asked why the communal door could not be reversed to open outwards and asserted there was no reason not to reverse it.
    2. She asked for the landlord to confirm what actions it had taken and was going to take against the ASB.
    3. She asked it to consider her and other resident’s health and safety and what the possible impact of the continued intrusion, vandalism and drugs use would have on residents and the property.
  13. The resident noted that the landlord had referred her to the police but she said this had been ineffective. She noted that the communal cupboards had now been locked but this had led to the intruders using the ceilings and the gardens to hide drugs.
  14. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident on 18 June 2021 in which it confirmed that the communal front door had been approved for renewal which would have upgraded security and would open outwards. It confirmed that it was awaiting an update on this as this was due to have been completed on 4 June 2021. The landlord also confirmed that works were being arranged to remedy the damage caused by the intruders.
  15. The landlord confirmed that CCTV was to be installed at the property and that the police were aware of the situation. It said that an investigation was ongoing to identify the intruders. The landlord said that the measures it had taken to address the ASB were:
    1. Communicating with the residents.
    2. Placing ASB warning signs around the building.
    3. Liaising with the police’s safer neighbourhoods team which made random visits to the block.
    4. Written to residents to warn them not to give access to non-residents.
    5. Arrange for the installation of CCTV.
  16. The landlord described a local partnership scheme between the police, the local authority and businesses to reduce crime and ASB in the area. It advised of the actions the partnership was able to take to combat low level crime and ASB. The landlord advised the resident to contact the police if there was any threat to her safety or damage to her property.
  17. On 22 July 2021, in response to an enquiry from the resident the previous day, the landlord apologised to her that it had miscommunicated in its final response and confirmed that the front communal door, while repaired, would not be renewed until 2024/25.
  18. The resident informed the landlord and the Ombudsman on 23 July 2021 that she continued to be dissatisfied as she had been misinformed by it. She said that she had experienced emotional distress as a result of the ASB and wanted reimbursement for the cost of installing her own security camera and alarm in the property. The resident also wanted a refund of her service charge as she felt she was not receiving an acceptable service and believed that the landlord was not compliant with health and safety regulations.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the maintenance, repair and redecoration of the “entrance passages landings staircases and other parts of the Building enjoyed or used by the Tenant in common with others”.
  2. The landlord’s ASB webpage states that when it receives a report of ASB, it will contact the resident within 24 hours and arrange an interview within five working days. This confirms that it will work with the police, the youth offending service and educational establishments to reduce ASB. This webpage also states that it is committed to providing support to victims and witnesses of ASB, and that it commits to involving resident in decision on how to tackle ASB.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure provides for a two stage complaints procedure where complaints at stage one of this procedure should be responded to within ten working days. At the final stage of this complaints procedure, complaints should be responded to within 25 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. It should be clarified that the role of the Ombudsman is not to determine whether or not ASB actually occurred, nor is it to tackle any ASB reported to this Service. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the actions taken by the landlord in response to reports of ASB were in line with its obligations under statute and its policy and procedure, and were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The ASB reported by the resident involved trespass, vandalism and drug use which are criminal in nature. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to refer her to the police in its stage one and final stage complaint responses. It is beyond its power to carry out a criminal investigation and therefore it would be expected to liaise with and work with the police to tackle the ASB reported, in accordance with its ASB webpage.
  3. It is noted that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to reverse the front communal door to prevent it being kicked open. The landlord had an obligation, as specified in the lease agreement, to maintain and repair the shared parts of the building. There was no obligation on it to replace or reverse the front communal door, only to repair it and re-secure it in the event of damage. There was evidence that the landlord upheld this obligation and arranged for repairs to the communal door and other areas damaged by the intruders. While the resident maintained that changing the door to open outwards would prevent intruders gaining access, there was no evidence that this would have stopped the intruders gaining access to the building. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to continue to carry out repairs to re-secure the door. However, it was a failing of the landlord’s that it misadvised her in its final response that it would reverse the door.
  4. The landlord took reasonable actions to address the ASB and the effects of it by repairing the front communal door, locking the communal cupboards, arranging for the installation of CCTV and liaising with the police. However, there was no evidence of it upholding its commitment, as stated on its ASB webpage, to support and involve the resident in addressing the ASB. There was no evidence of it communicating with her, other than in its final complaint response to her, to advise of the actions it had taken. In light of the distressing nature of the reported ASB, it would have reasonable for the landlord to keep her updated on what actions it was taking to reassure her that the ASB was being addressed. This lack of communication was a failing on its part.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the resident wanted reimbursement of her costs in installing security systems at her home and reimbursement of her service charge for the perceived inadequate service provided by the landlord. While it may be understandable that investing in additional security measures may seem appropriate to the resident in light of the nature of the ASB, the landlord cannot be held responsible for these costs as there was no evidence that it failed to carry out repairs to restore the security of the building, and it is noted that it agreed to the installation of CCTV in the building. Furthermore, disputes over the standard of service received in return for the service charge are within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal and the resident may wish to seek legal advice on how to bring a claim if she wishes to pursue this.
  6. The Ombudsman awards compensation to reflect any likely detriment caused to the resident to ‘put right’ any failing it exhibited in its service. In this case, there was a failing by the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident about her reports of ASB and compensation will be awarded to proportionately recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by this failing.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf, provides for awards of £50 to £250 for instances of failure “which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. Considering the period of time over which there was a lack of communication about the ASB and that there was no evidence that more communication would have changed the outcome for the resident, the Ombudsman orders that compensation of £150 would proportionately recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of communication and misinformation in its final complaint response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB but it did not communicate with her effectively considering the likely distress the ASB may have caused, and it provided incorrect information to her in its final complaint response.

Order

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the amount of £150 compensation to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Contact the resident to provide an update on the actions taken so far to resolve the ASB.
    2. Agree a schedule with her to provide updates on its investigation of the ASB.
    3. Strongly consider advising the resident about applying for the Community Trigger process if the incidents continue. This intervention would ensure that her reports and its actions are more comprehensively investigated and reviewed. The web address with this information is https://www.haringey.gov.uk/community/community-safety-and-engagement/anti-social-behaviour/community-trigger