The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London Borough of Enfield (202315166)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315166

London Borough of Enfield

26 April 2024


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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy for a bedsit in a block owned by the landlord, a local authority. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident’s reports of ASB relate to a neighbour who was also a tenant of the landlord. The neighbour lived directly across from the resident on the same floor.
  2. Between 16 May and 6 September 2023, the resident made a number of reports of alleged ASB from his neighbour to the landlord. There is evidence of another resident in the block raising similar reports throughout this same period. Notable incident reports from the resident in this period include:
    1. On 18 May he raised the impact the “continuous noise” and “intimidating people” was having on his health. He said his car had been vandalised and a parcel stolen from his doorstep. He asked the landlord to complete a “community trigger” on 5 June. The landlord did not respond to these emails.
    2. On 17 and 23 June he provided video and photographic evidence of the alleged ASB to the landlord. He agreed for it to share this information with the police.
    3. On 28 June he reported he was in constant fear of his neighbour’s visitors who he believed were drug dealing. He continued to raise these concerns from this point on in further emails. He asked the landlord to move him on 14 July. He said that the situation was “unbearable” on 22 July. On 3 August he said the situation was “taking a toll on his mental health” and he did not feel safe.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 13 June 2023 and the landlord responded on 28 June 2023. It said the following:
    1. It apologised for the lack of response to his emails of 18 May and 5 June 2023. It said it upheld his complaint for this reason and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
    2. It said that even if it had responded to the resident, its ASB investigation would have remained the same. It confirmed its ASB investigation was still open. It provided a named ASB officer who it said would remain in contact a minimum of once a month.
    3. It advised the resident to report any incidents to the police and the landlord. It said it could provide support for additional locks on the resident’s property if he wished.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 June 2023. The landlord drafted its reply on 21 July 2023 but failed to send the response to him until 2 August 2023. It told him the following:
    1. It had reviewed its stage 1 response and did not believe it had misinterpreted his concerns. It said it could have provided more detail in its response and apologised if its response came across poorly. It thanked the resident for providing further evidence which it would share with the police.
    2. It assured the resident its ASB investigation was ongoing but could not share anything further due to legal and operational reasons. It explained it needed to deal with the “root cause” of the ASB issue.
    3. It said it was not always able to reply to complaints immediately and its investigation meant it often replies at the end of a complaint deadline. It offered further compensation of £170 to pay for the cost of the resident’s video doorbell and drill to install.
    4. It said it could not consider moving the resident due to “huge demand for housing.” It said the neighbour was affecting other residents in the block too.
  5. On 1 September 2023 the resident reported a visitor to the neighbour had a large knife and provided evidence of this. He reiterated this on 5 September 2023 when he received no reply from the landlord. It told him on 6 September 2023 its ASB team would contact him about this. There is further evidence of contact between the landlord and resident about ASB from this point on. The landlord evicted the neighbour from the property on 28 November 2023 and closed the ASB case.
  6. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 16 January 2024. The resident told this Service the following:
    1. The alleged ASB continued relentlessly for 3 months. The last correspondence he received from the landlord was on 21 July 2023 and he was “left to fend for himself”.
    2. He suffered from anxiety, depression and insomnia and was frightened to leave the house due to the alleged ASB. He said even with the neighbour gone he does not feel safe in his home.
    3. He said the landlord had offered compensation of only £100 in its stage 1 complaint response and a further £70 in its stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy considers the definition of ASB as the same as the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It defines this as:
    1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person,
    2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or,
    3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. The Tenancy Agreement confirms the tenant is responsible for the behaviour of anyone living in or visiting their home. It will consider all legal remedies available to deal with ASB, nuisance and criminal activity supported by sufficient evidence. The ASB Policy classifies ASB under two categories:
    1. Priority 1 Where there is an immediate risk to the health, safety, and well-being of residents because of the ASB. Examples include suspected drug dealing, illegal use of the premises, serious harassment, and serious threats of violence. It will acknowledge any priority 1 reports in 48 hours. In 5 working days, it will interview the complainant and agree an action plan, complete a vulnerability assessment, and contact the alleged perpetrator (if appropriate). It will update the complainant every 28 days until the ASB case closure.
    2. Priority 2 Where the ASB is of a low level for intervention. Examples include issues including personal drug or alcohol use, misuse of communal areas, verbal abuse, threatening behaviour, noise nuisance and minor harassment. It will acknowledge any priority 2 reports in 48 hours. In 10 working days, it will interview the complainant and agree an action plan, complete a vulnerability assessment, and contact the alleged perpetrator (if appropriate). It will update the complainant every 28 days until the ASB case closure.

Landlord communication.

  1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of alleged ‘priority 2’ ASB of 18 May and 5 June 2023. In failing to respond it failed to act in accordance with its ASB Policy for the following reasons:
    1. It failed to interview the resident and discuss either report with him and also failed to agree an action plan. It was supposed to do this within 10 working days in accordance with its ASB Policy.
    2. It failed to complete a vulnerability assessment for the resident after either report as its ASB Policy dictates.
  2. The resident made further reports of alleged priority 2 ASB to the landlord on 17 and 23 June 2023. The landlord provided acknowledgement to the resident’s concerns of 17 June on 19 June 2023. It did not acknowledge his concerns of 23 June 2023. The landlord spoke to the resident and listened to both concerns on 28 June 2023. It therefore met its deadline for a response within 10 working days in its ASB Policy. However, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB Policy otherwise. It failed to agree an action with the resident as part of its discussion with him. It also failed on all reports to complete a vulnerability assessment of the resident. It also did not agree an action plan or complete a vulnerability assessment in relation to any further reports made by the resident. As such the landlord consistently failed to follow its policy and did not treat the resident fairly and in line with his circumstances. This meant it was unaware of the impact on the resident particularly on his health and ability to sleep. He said the issue and detriment to him was affecting his ability to work.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 28 June 2023 acknowledged its previous lack of contact on 18 May and 5 June 2023 “did not meet its service standards.” This gave the resident a reasonable expectation that the landlord’s communication would improve from this point forward. The landlord’s communication did improve following its stage 1 complaint response of 28 June 2023. In further emails on the same date as its stage 1 complaint response, it spoke to the resident. It considered the evidence he had provided, and it obtained his consent to share this with the police. It provided the resident with a named ASB contact and promised to remain in touch at least once a month. It also suggested it could support him with further locks for his front door. This was all appropriate and proportionate action.
  4. Following this on 5 and 6 July 2023 the resident reported further alleged priority 2 ASB. The landlord acknowledged his reports on 6 July 2023 and said it would forward them to its ASB team. The landlord failed to respond to and discuss these concerns within 10 working days in accordance with its ASB Policy. This caused the resident to feel he was not being listened to and was “dealing with the issue himself.”
  5. The resident reported further alleged priority 2 ASB on 10, 14 and 16 July 2023. The landlord told him on 14 July 2023 its ASB officer would reply once they returned from leave. It’s ASB officer did respond to the resident on 21 July 2023. This meant they responded to the above reports within 10 working days. After belatedly sending its stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2022 the landlord failed to send any further meaningful correspondence to the resident in August 2023. It failed at this point to meet its promise in its stage 1 response to stay in touch every 30 days. It also failed to meet its ASB Policy of remaining in touch for a minimum of 28 days.
  6. From 1 September 2023 the resident’s reports became priority 1 in nature. He reported drug dealing and that he had evidence of a visitor to the neighbour carrying a “machete.” He repeated his concerns to the landlord on 5 September 2023. He asked if someone would “be killed or hurt before it acted.” The landlord said the following day its ASB officer would contact him about the case. There is no evidence it ever did so from this point onwards. The landlord failed to respond to his concerns in 5 working days in accordance with its ASB Policy. There is evidence it was working to take proportionate action relating to the neighbour’s behaviour at this point. Although it could not have provided full details of this due its handling obligations, it should have kept the affected residents updated with what information it could share. As it failed to communicate with the resident at all from this point it further failed to communicate a minimum of every 28 days as per its ASB Policy. It also maintained its failure to meet its promise in its stage 1 response to stay in touch every 30 days. This was inappropriate and a major failure in enacting its policy. This caused distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience to the resident.
  7. There is evidence the landlord was working to resolve the ASB from the neighbour throughout the resident’s complaint until it evicted the neighbour on 28 November 2023. It told the resident in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses it was working on the case and its stage 2 response told him it was trying to solve the “root cause” of the issue. This was appropriate and applicable in the parameters of the information it could share. It explained it could not provide any substantial information about what action it was taking in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This was appropriate as it could not share information about one resident with another. However, it should have continued to provide this information until it closed the ASB case. This would have supported the resident’s confidence it was continuing to work toward a resolution.
  8. The tenancy agreement confirms it will “consider all legal remedies available to it…. where this is supported by sufficient evidence.” The resident had provided the landlord with video and photo evidence from 18 May 2023 to support its ASB case. It failed to acknowledge or use this evidence for its case at this time. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it said its approach to the ASB case “would have remained the same had it responded to the resident.” This caused the resident to feel it did not value the evidence he was providing. He raised this point in his complaint escalation. The landlord provided an appropriate response in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for its stance in its stage 1 complaint response and thanked him for the “considerable evidence he had provided”. It said it would share the information with the police. It had in fact obtained the resident’s consent to do this on 28 June 2023. It had shared this with the police on the same day.” This was in accordance with its ASB Policy and supported the landlord’s case against the neighbour.
  9. From 28 June 2023 until 2 August 2023, it confirmed to the resident it was in contact with the police. It also encouraged the resident to continue to make reports to the police. Both were appropriate actions and supported the resident and resolution of the ASB. However, from 3 August 2023, there is no further evidence of the landlord advising the resident to contact the police. This is particularly alarming given the serious nature of the resident’s reports on 1 and 5 September 2023. The landlord failed to abide by its ASB Policy in this respect. It also left the resident feeling like he was “dealing with the issue alone.”
  10. The ASB Policy states it will “close cases of ASB in consultation with the victim where it has been determined that the ASB has been resolved.” The issue was resolved on 28 November 2022 when the landlord evicted the neighbour. The landlord also closed the ASB case at this point. There is no evidence the landlord consulted with the resident about the closure of the ASB case. It is uncertain when the resident was aware the neighbour had been evicted. In failing to inform the resident of the outcome of the case the landlord potentially prolonged the worry, anxiety, and distress for the resident.

Wellbeing of the resident.

  1. The resident said his concerns were worsening and on 14 July 2023 he said he was “losing his sanity” and “was not sleeping” and was “feeling ignored and let down”. On 16 July 2023, he said he “had no hope anything was going to be done” and it was causing him “anxiety, discomfort and depression.” The landlord had previously failed to complete vulnerability checks for the resident. However, on the occasions mentioned above and following this, he informed it of the detriment the issue was having on his wellbeing. It is of serious concern the landlord did not use this information as a further prompt to complete a vulnerability assessment. Furthermore, it had the opportunity to “support the victim” in accordance with its ASB Policy. It could have signposted the resident to wellbeing support locally or online but failed to do so.
  2. In failing to sufficiently support the resident as a victim in accordance with its ASB Policy it also failed to meet its Vigilance in Supporting the Wellbeing of Council Tenants Policy. The policy dictates when one resident raises concerns about another resident, the landlord must complete appropriate checks and feed this back to the person who raised the concerns.

ASB Case Review (Community trigger).

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms that ASB Case Reviews were previously known as a Community Trigger. It intends to give victims and communities a review of the ASB case by the agencies responsible. In raising an ASB Case Review the resident must provide their full details in an email labelled ‘ASB Case Review.’ They must detail the problem and the instances they have raised this. The following threshold must be met for the landlord to activate an ASB Case Review:
    1. At least three separate complaints of ASB incidents have been reported to the landlord relating to the same ASB issue.
    2. Each complaint must be submitted within one month of the ASB incident taking place.
    3. The application for the case review must be made within six months of the date on which the complaint is made.
  2. If the landlord activates an ASB Case Review it assigns a lead officer to review the case and work with the partner agencies. The lead officer will assess previous actions taken by the landlord. This includes the landlord’s contact with the victim, the victim’s vulnerability and if it has acknowledged the reported problems.
  3. On 5 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord with the subject ‘Community Trigger’. As previously stated, the landlord did not reply to this email. The resident’s email did not have sufficient evidence for it to consider an ASB Case Review. However, it never explained this to the resident. The landlord was aware of the resident’s intentions as on 5 June 2023 that its internal correspondence confirmed the Community Trigger request from the resident. It took no further action at this point. This made the resident feel he was not being listened to or taken seriously. He raised the landlord’s lack of response in his complaint of 13 June 2023.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident’s ASB Case Review request. It did not provide any further information about the resident’s request. The response left the resident uncertain if the landlord has accepted his ASB Case Review or if any further action was required.
  5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s ASB Case Review request until 21 July 2023. It responded on the same day as its stage 2 complaint response but in a separate email. The stage 2 complaint response did not reference the ASB Case Review. The landlord should have provided this information in its stage 2 response as it had failed to fully address the point in its stage 1 response.
  6. In the email of 21 July 2023, the landlord asked if the resident wished to pursue his request for a “Community Trigger”. It said it would need to contact partner agencies to see if the case “met the threshold.” The resident confirmed on 22 July 2023 that he wanted the “Community Trigger”. He said he had further evidence for this. Following this, there is no further evidence of the landlord considering the ASB Case Review or contacting the resident about the matter. This was inappropriate and caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  7. Had the landlord considered an ASB Case Review at any point and followed its ASB Policy, it would have had the opportunity to reconsider and potentially mitigate the failings previously mentioned in this report. This includes its failure to communicate with the resident about the ASB case, its failure to acknowledge his concerns and its failure to assess the resident’s vulnerability. Had it taken these steps it might have prevented escalation of the issues experienced by the resident.

Security at the block.

  1. Before the resident’s complaint, on 2 February 2023 the landlord noted the block’s communal door was “being held open with a piece of wood.” The resident told it on 5 September 2023 the block’s intercom had been tampered with and he wanted it to be fixed. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this report or took any action to resolve it causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 6 February 2024 that it had found the neighbour’s intercom had been tampered with. It said this meant anyone could access the block. An order will be made for the landlord to ensure the safety of the entrance to the block. It should also monitor this for a further period of time to ensure security is maintained.

The resident’s request to be moved.

  1. The landlord’s Allocation Scheme states it can consider a “sensitive lettings approach to decide how to let properties.” An example it includes is where there has been “a high level of recorded instances of harassment or nuisance in a block. The Tenancy Agreement confirms tenants have the ‘Right to Buy’ the freehold or leasehold after they have been a tenant for 3 years.
  2. On 5 and 14 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord for his options about being moved. He had not asked this in his complaint escalation of 30 June 2023. The landlord did respond to this point as part of its stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023. It explained appropriately that it was unable to consider moving him due to the “huge demand for housing.” It also said there were other resident’s “affected by the neighbour.” It could have explained here its procedure for sensitive lets. It could have explained it was not able to consider a sensitive let due to the amount of residents it would have to consider this for. The landlord did appropriately signpost the resident to the ‘Homeswapper’ process for his consideration.
  3. The resident asked in his complaint escalation of 30 June 2023 about Right to Buy and believed this was no longer an option at his current property. He said he wished for Right to Buy to be applied to any new property. The landlord did not address these concerns in its stage 2 response of 21 July 2023. In its response, it could have advised him how his Right to Buy would be affected if he moved to a different property owned by the landlord or otherwise. This would have supported him in making an informed decision about using ‘Homeswapper’ and reduced any uncertainty for him.

Compensation.

  1. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. This was £50 each for its failure to respond to the reports from the resident on 18 May and 5 June 2023. This was appropriate and in accordance with its Compensation Policy for minimal service failures.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered compensation of £170. This was to reimburse the resident for the £140 cost of his video doorbell and £30 cost for a drill for installation. This was reasonable and addressed the resident’s concerns it had not considered this in its stage 1 complaint response. It also showed the resident it valued the evidence he was providing from the video doorbell.
  3. The total compensation offered by the landlord was £270. The resident told this Service in correspondence on 6 February 2022 that the compensation offered by the landlord was only £170 in total. He believed this was £100 at stage 1 and £70 at stage 2. The offer of compensation from the landlord was £100 at stage 1 and £170 at stage 2.
  4. The Ombudsman finds the total compensation offered by the landlord as insufficient. It failed to recognise:
    1. It did not adhere to its ASB Policy following the reports from the resident. It failed to interview the resident on some occasions. On all occasions, it failed to agree an action plan with the resident or complete a vulnerability assessment.
    2. It failed to consider any help or support for the resident through signposting or referral. This was particularly relevant when the resident told it about the impact the situation was having on his health.
    3. It failed to respond to two requests for an ASB Case Review when raised by the resident.
    4. It failed to provide sufficient evidence to the resident to allow him to complete an informed decision about whether to consider moving properties.
  5. As shown above, there were evident failures from the landlord in its implementation of its own ASB procedure. However, the evidence also suggests reasonable and proportionate action on its part in that the neighbour’s eviction took place within a relatively short period following the escalation of the resident’s reports. The Ombudsman appreciates the difficulty faced by landlords in dealing with these issues. Difficulties include the weight of evidence required to secure a successful possession hearing when faced with serious and prolonged ASB, the time taken to progress through such a process and the requirement to balance the needs of all affected parties, including victims and alleged perpetrators.
  6. Taking this case all the way to a successful eviction in November 2023 demonstrates that the landlord had acted promptly and efficiently in dealing with this matter in terms of identifying the need to take formal possession action and then obtaining the relevant evidence that would secure such a resolution. Nonetheless, the landlord’s failures elsewhere entailed that it did not meet all facets of its overall responsibility here.
  7. In summary the Ombudsman finds the compensation offered by the landlord not to be proportionate to the detriment suffered by the resident on account of these failures. This is because the landlord failed to sufficiently treat the resident as a victim in accordance with the requirements of its ASB Policy. It failed to support him when he needed it and did not mitigate any detriment caused to his welfare. He was left feeling as though he was “fending for himself.” Due to the issues detailed above, the Ombudsman has made a determination of maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. Compensation of £600 has been awarded which includes the £270 previously awarded by the landlord. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged ASB.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £600 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient response to his reports of ASB. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This amount includes the £270 previously awarded by the landlord.
    2. The landlord should ensure all staff members are compliant with the requirements of its ASB Policy, particularly in how it treats those reporting ASB. It should consider any further training, as necessary.
    3. The landlord should complete a review of the entry to the block ensuring it is safe and secure. It must monitor this for a further period of 4 weeks to ensure the safety and security of entry is maintained.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide the resident with further information about how his Right to Buy would be affected if he chose to leave his property.