Haringey Council (202100487)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100487

Haringey Council

31 August 2022


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:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. The resident’s request for a sound-proofing assessment.
    3. The resident’s request for rehousing.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39m of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

c. The landlords response to the resident’s request for rehousing.

  1. Paragraph 39m of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body;”
  2. The resident has complained that she would like to be moved to alternative accommodation due to her health needs, and as a resolution to her complaint about noise and other anti-social behaviour from neighbours.
  3. The memorandum of understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) says that matters relating to applications for rehousing under the Housing Act 1996 part VI  including assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference fall under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a second floor flat and resides with two young children.
  2. The resident says there is a lack of noise insulation at her property. Her children can hear noises of sexual intercourse from the neighbours above her, and her neighbour below shouts and bangs on his ceiling when he hears noises of the children playing on the floor above. The resident describes the floorboards in her property as ‘very old and squeaky’ and although she does have a carpet, the whole flat is affected by this issue.
  3. In transcripts of an online conversation with her Housing Officer, the resident says that she first contacted the repairs team about the problem with her floorboards before the lockdown period in February 2020. No repairs records have been provided by the landlord to verify when the resident first raised the issue. No evidence has been seen that the floorboards have been inspected or there has been an assessment of whether or not the soundproofing in the flat is adequate.
  4. The earliest record of the noise issue being reported is from June 2020. On 19 June 2020, the landlord told the resident it had contacted her upstairs neighbour regarding the noise. A letter was sent to them “to take appropriate action in order to reduce noise nuisance” and said there had been an increase in similar reports due to Coronavirus restrictions.
  5. In September 2020, the resident made a complaint about noise and loud music coming from her upstairs neighbours. The resident also raised the problem of her neighbour downstairs banging on his ceiling which she said was disturbing and affecting her mental health.
  6. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 24 September 2020. In this response, the landlord took the following actions:
    1. Sent the resident diary sheets to record any further incidents of noise nuisance
    2. Warned the neighbours by letter that their actions could be a breach of tenancy and could lead to further action against them including possession proceedings if the behaviour continued.
    3. Provided contact details of the anti-social behaviour team for any further reports.
    4. Gave the resident general housing advice and information on how to apply for a housing transfer.
  7. In October 2020, the resident approached her local Councillor regarding loud music, verbal abuse and the other noise problems and the affect the situation was having on her wellbeing. There is evidence that following this on 12 October 2020 the landlord made a referral to a support agency specialising in mental health issues.
  8. In January 2021, the resident’s local MP made enquiries to the landlord on her behalf regarding the ongoing unresolved noise situation and said the resident described her situation as ‘unbearable.’
  9. The landlord contacted the resident following the MP enquiry and discussed the housing options available. The landlord said this included the possibility of a mutual exchange either with an online service or through an internal mutual exchange initiative run by the landlord. Although the MP had suggested the resident was willing to consider rehousing in the private sector, the landlord has not responded directly to confirm what assistance it could provide to offer private sector accommodation. The landlord also reminded the resident of the referral it had made to local support agencies. 
  10. On 15 May 2021, the resident escalated her complaint via email saying that the issues had not been resolved.
  11. On 10 June 2021, the landlord responded at the second stage of the complaints process having carried out an ‘independent review’ of the stage one complaint response. The landlord said that
    1. It was satisfied that the stage one complaint had been ‘properly investigated’ and its position was unchanged.
    2. Medical information in support of the residents housing application had been assessed and the resident had been placed in band C for rehousing.
    3. The resident could contact its repairs team regarding the sound-proofing issue.
  12. In the months following the final stage complaints response, the resident contacted her Housing Officer about the lack of action from the repairs service. On 23 September 2021, the landlord said its repairs service was ‘currently going through a procurement period and therefore have no contractors to do the job.’ The landlord said that the procurement process was scheduled to be finished next month and following this, they could attend regarding the residents flooring. However, no confirmation has been provided that the repairs service have attended or made an assessment of sound-proofing.
  13. The resident has contacted this service for further assistance in trying to resolve her situation. 

Assessment and findings

Noise and ASB

  1. The landlords Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy sets out in approach and procedures for tackling ASB. The policy states that “where you report behaviour that prevents you from the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of your home or your community or is a breach of tenancy/lease conditions we will:
    1. Contact you to assess your case within 1 day.
    2. Offer you an interview to discuss your case within 5 further days.
    3. Explain to you the action we will take within a further 5 and within a following 7 days, interview the alleged perpetrator.
    4. Complete a review of the case within 36 days.
    5. ASB officers will exercise judgement as to what enforcement action (if any) is required.
  2. Given the nature of the ASB reports and the staff dealing with them, the landlord has complied with its ASB policy to a reasonable extent since it has:
    1. Maintained a reasonable standard of communication with the resident about her noise reports.
    2. Given the resident diary sheets to log any further incidents of ASB.
    3. Issued at least two warning letters to neighbours about their behaviour.
    4. Provided advice about how take the matter further if needed.
    5. Made a referral to mental health support services.
  3. The landlord says that its warning letters have been effective. The number of noise incidents and ASB reports has reduced since warning letters were issued. It was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord not to take further enforcement action on neighbours such as formal possession proceedings. Since many of the noise issues consisted of daily living noise rather than noise nuisance or ASB it was reasonable for the landlord not to offer mediation or escalate the matter to the ASB team. 

Request for soundproofing assessment

  1. The resident believes the cause of the noise issues are related to the ‘nature of the building’ which is old and may lack soundproofing rather than being related to any behaviour which may require enforcement action.
  2. As highlighted above, although the landlord has said that its repairs team is willing to carry out an assessment of the soundproofing in the residents flat, there is no evidence that this occurred. Although there is a lack of evidence regarding when the residents initial repair request was made, the landlord was certainly aware of the repair request during June 2021 (as shown by online communications) and had failed to respond to the request by 10 October 2021.
  3. This is a significant delay in responding to a legitimate repair request and constitutes service failure. The landlord has not provided it’s repairs policy and there is no information online regarding normal response times. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy says that discretionary compensation can be awarded where “the complainant was adversely affected by Homes for Haringey’s delay in taking action. The complainant has sustained loss or suffering resulting from a service failure. Considerations include the complainant’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.”
  4. A compensation payment to acknowledge the delay in attending to the request for sound-proofing assessment would therefore be reasonable in order to put things right as per the landlords policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. A payment of £150 is reasonable and in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance. This is for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident caused by the delay in attending to the soundproofing request.
  5. The landlord’s failures was not completing the assessment. Sound proofing requirements are not retrospective in old buildings, and noise can be an issues in them while the landlord has no obligation to complete works in them. Therefore this determination does not mean that sound proofing works will be completed. However the landlord needs to satisfy itself that there are no defects before making this decision, and there is no evidence that it collected this information, as explained above.
  6. It is also noted that the complaints process itself did not show itself to be resolution-focussed enough. Rather than just informing the resident of how to progress her situation, the landlord should have been more pro-active at linking up directly with its own repairs service as well as its own ASB service to ensure that matters were picked up and resolved. There is little evidence of a co-ordinated approach overseen by the complaints team.
  7. Although this service has not directly assessed the landlords actions regarding rehousing the resident, in order to try and provide some further resolution for the resident, it has also been recommended that the landlord discuss any private sector rehousing options available for the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlords response to the residents request for soundproofing assessment.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the reports of ASB, sending out warning letters to residents and providing advice and assistance to the resident. However, there was a delay of several months in carrying out a sound-proofing assessment.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £150 for the delay in carrying out a soundproofing assessment of her flooring and carry out a suitable assessment within four weeks.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord discuss private sector rehousing options with the resident.