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

Haringey Council (202005551)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005551

Haringey Council

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:

  1. Response to the resident’s allegations of antisocial behaviour.
  2. Response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.
  3. Handling of the resident’s complaints.
  4. Response to the resident’s request to have sole use of the garden.
  5. Delay in replacing the windows.
  6. The resident’s request to be reimbursed for the installation of CCTV cameras.

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 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to have sole use of the garden.

This element of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because the use of the garden is disputed – the tenancy agreement is silent on the matter, but the leaseholder believes the garden is shared. The terms of the lease and the presence of the fire escape indicate that the leaseholder can access the garden. Resolution of this dispute would require a definitive interpretation of the terms of the lease and tenancy agreement, which are matters for a legal process. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make such a determination.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property concerned is a house that has been converted into two flats. The resident is a secure tenant of the ground floor flat. The upstairs flat is owned by a leaseholder who privately sublets the property. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident is vulnerable and has a support worker.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement requires tenants, and anyone staying in or visiting their home, to use the shared areas and facilities in a reasonable way. It also states tenants, and anyone staying or visiting their home, “must not drop litter in or damage any communal gardens or other spaces” and “must not do anything which might cause nuisance or annoyance in the communal areas. This includes leaving litter or making the communal areas dirty or untidy.”
  2. The tenancy agreement states “you, or anyone staying in or visiting your home must not harass any other person on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or disability or for any other reason. Harassment means interfering with the peace or comfort of any person.” In relation to nuisance, the tenancy agreement states “you, or anyone staying in or visiting your home, must not do anything which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to anyone staying in or visiting the locality of your home.”
  3. The tenancy agreement includes a section for indicating whether the property has a garden plot and whether it is shared. It is not circled to indicate which one applies to this property.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy designates repairs as out of hours, emergency, agreed appointment or planned. For agreed appointments, the landlord will offer the resident an appointment within 28 days. Agreed appointments include light fittings or sockets not working, glazing repairs, windows and doors and locks which are difficult to operate. Planned repairs are those where the job “has to be pre-inspected, in order for larger components to be measured and manufactured, where the job may take several days to complete or where it is more economical and efficient for the work to be packaged up.” These types of jobs will be inspected within 28 days and a date for completion will be provided at the inspection date. Planned works includes renewing joinery such as windows and fencing.
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy states that initial requests for service due to problems arising in the first instance are not complaints and will not be logged as such.
  6. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines timeframes for the complaint process. The landlord will acknowledge a formal complaint within two working days, will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 25 working days. If the landlord needs to speak to the parties involved and is unable to make contact, the response time may be extended.
  7. The landlord has a discretionary compensation policy and procedure which establishes guidelines for when the landlord will consider making a discretionary payment for service failure or poor service. Categories considered for a discretionary payment include a failure by the landlord to respond to correspondence, missed appointments, where the landlord has not acted against harassment/neighbourhood nuisance/antisocial behaviour (ASB), failure to resolve repairs and time or trouble.
  8. The leaseholder must follow all the rules the landlord makes for its residents and must not allow other people to break the rules and conditions of the lease.
  9. The lease provided by the landlord includes the plans for the associated property. The property includes the garden as part of ‘the estate’.

Summary of events

  1. The repairs record shows that on 17 January 2019, the resident reported the kitchen window was rotten and a socket in the kitchen was loose. The landlord attended on 4 February 2019 regarding the window and follow up jobs were raised to reglaze the window and renew the fastener stay to the sash window. The follow up jobs for the windows were marked as complete on 14 February 2019 and 11 March 2019, respectively. The repairs records show the loose socket in the kitchen was completed on 26 March 2019.
  2. On 18 February 2019, the resident’s support worker submitted a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The complaint was about the actions and behaviour of one of the landlord’s staff members during the resident’s tenancy sign up. He alleged the member of staff was 35 minutes late, her manner was aggressive, and she had refused to allow him to ask questions other than whether his security of tenure would continue. He also alleged that the member of staff had said she was going to show him the property and he could “take it or leave it, I don’t have time”. He stated he was making the complaint to prevent someone else having a similar experience and to make the landlord aware that the ultimatum issued by the member of staff had caused him further stress. He requested that what he had reported was taken into consideration and for an apology from the member of staff concerned.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 February 2019 and advised a full written response would be provided by 4 March 2019. The complaint was sent to the relevant team for investigation the same day.
  4. On 4 March 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on his complaint and the landlord requested an update from the relevant team.
  5. The resident rang the landlord on 12 March 2019 as he had still not received a response to his complaint and had not had any updates on the delay. The landlord asked the relevant team to contact the resident and reminded them they should be providing a holding response if there was a delay.
  6. On 29 March 2019, the resident had a phone call with the landlord, though it is unclear who initiated this call. At the landlord’s request, the resident followed up the call with an email on 1 April 2019 with the details of some other issues that had occurred since moving into the property. The resident stated he had requested clarification regarding whether he had sole use of the rear garden from two members of staff but had not received a response. He had sought legal advice and had subsequently ordered a copy of the title plan for the first floor flat from HM Land Registry Office. The title plan outlines the building only which he believes shows the first floor flat does not have access to the garden. He alleged the leaseholder’s tenants were throwing rubbish into the gardens, making indirect threats, and had claimed the resident only had access to the garden area under the fire escape. He also alleged the garden had been in a poor state when he accepted the property, had gotten worse due to the behaviour of the leaseholder’s tenants and there was “a rat problem”.
  7. The resident stated he felt threatened by the leaseholder’s tenants and raised concerns that he would not have any privacy as his kitchen and bedroom windows faced onto the garden. He alleged the leaseholder’s tenants had stolen an item from his bedroom and he now felt unable to open the bedroom window. The resident explained that due to the stress caused he had been admitted to hospital overnight after calling the crisis team. The resident explained he had safety concerns if the leaseholder’s tenants were made aware of his allegations so asked that they remained confidential. The resident also explained that he intended to purchase CCTV cameras for the front and rear of the property.
  8. The resident sent a second email the same day regarding ongoing and new repairs/issues. He stated the concrete part of the garden wall was broken, there was no doorbell, part of the fence was broken, the concrete in the rear garden was cracked and broken, the drainage was blocked, some internal doors did not close properly, the water pressure was poor, the kitchen window was broken and had not been repaired as he had been advised, the front window was broken and the glazier had been unable to repair it due to the state of the front garden. He also raised concerns about the level of noise from the flat above (though stated he was not bothered about this at the moment), asked if he could change the lock on the front door to a more secure one, install laminate flooring, have additional sockets to the hallway and advised he was still waiting for an occupational therapy appointment he had been referred for in December 2018/January 2019.
  9. On 8 April 2019, the landlord asked the team responsible for responding to the resident’s complaint to do so, allocated the other issues raised to the relevant teams for action and asked that a joint visit was completed by the tenancy management and repairs teams to address the concerns.
  10. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 9 April 2019. It raised jobs for the installation of a doorbell, the unblocking of the drains, the installation of an additional socket in the hallway, adjustments to the internal doors, a pressure test and remediation of the low pressure and an initial inspection appointment for the garden boundary wall. It also requested a boundary check in relation to the damaged fence and advised that the door was due to be renewed as part of major works but would be inspected on the visit that afternoon.
  11. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 16 April 2019. He explained he had still not received a response to his stage one complaint, the issues with his neighbours were ongoing and he was still waiting for clarification about the garden. The resident explained that he was going away for three weeks on the advice of his psychologist to get away from the house and “rest his mind” and asked if the landlord could rearrange the appointments on his behalf. The resident provided the reference numbers for the jobs he needed rearranging and several dates that he was unavailable. The resident explained someone had been to inspect the fence and arranged for it to be replaced “mid-June” and someone else had removed part of the damaged wall to the front garden and ordered new parts. He also advised someone had been out to the drains twice, but it had not been resolved and he had been told to call back in the winter if it got worse. The resident raised a new repair as the wooden frame on the front door had come away from the concrete.
  12. The resident sent a further two emails the same day, one with pictures showing damage to the front door and the state of the garden and one requesting information about authorisation for laminate flooring and permission for CCTV camera installation.
  13. On 29 April 2019, the landlord requested an update from the relevant team regarding the response to the stage one complaint and the issues allocated to tenancy management.
  14. On 30 April 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the delay in the response from the tenancy management team. It advised the resident to report noise nuisance to the enforcement response team and provided a copy of the form needed to apply for permission to install laminate flooring. The landlord also advised a letter had been sent to the leaseholder’s tenants requesting they stopped throwing rubbish out of the windows.
  15. The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 16 May 2019. During the call, the landlord apologised for the behaviour of its staff member during the tenancy sign up and advised it shared the pictures the resident had sent and highlighted to the relevant teams to “accelerate our decision on the two outstanding issues – the garden’s ownership/clearance/use and repair to the window.” The landlord advised it would update the resident before the end of next week.
  16. On 22 May 2019, the landlord sent its stage one response (dated 21 May 2019). It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced and the delay in responding to the initial complaint. The landlord defined the resident’s complaint as being about the service and conduct of its staff member and apologised that the service provided had fallen short of its standard. It explained the manager of the staff member had discussed the behaviour in line with the staff management policy and explained the manager should have responded earlier. Again, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns. The landlord explained it was aware the resident had raised other issues since the initial complaint but assured the resident they had been escalated to the relevant teams who would continue to co-ordinate the response. The landlord identified learning which it included in its Learning from Complaints log. On the same day, the landlord sent an internal email asking for the garden to be cleared, and for the resident to be updated regarding the use of the garden and informed of the appointment date for the window repair.
  17. On 25 June 2019, the landlord emailed the resident thanking him for meeting with it the previous week. It advised that it had raised the behaviour of the leaseholder’s tenants with the leaseholder and asked that she discuss the matter with her tenants. The landlord explained that due to the behaviour of the leasehold tenants and the inappropriate use of the garden, the landlord had granted the resident sole use of the front and rear garden. The landlord also explained that it owned the front and rear gardens, and it could terminate or alter the arrangement where it felt it was appropriate. It asked the resident to continue to report further issues and advised it would refer the matter to its legal department if necessary.
  18. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 July 2019 about verbal assaults, access to the garden, and issues with rubbish. The landlord responded on 2 July confirming that it had discussed the issues with the leaseholder and that if the situation did not improve, it would potentially refer the issues to the legal department for further action. The landlord has not provided any information about what it specifically discussed with the leaseholder and the outcome of the conversation.
  19. On 3 July 2019, the resident emailed the landlord thanking it for the swift response to his email of 1 July 2019. The resident advised there had only been arguments and loud talking the previous evening, no noise had been made overnight or that morning so he hoped nothing more would happen. He also sought clarification on
    1. Whether it was legal for the tenants to access the back garden to pick up washing that had fallen from the fire escape?
    2. Whether the tenants could hang clothing and carpets on the fire escape? And,
    3. Whether the tenants could shake small carpets from the fire escape to get rid of dust rather than hoovering?
  20. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 July 2019 explaining that since his email of 3 July 2019, the noise had increased again including loudly banging the doors early morning, evening, and night, running up and down the stairs loudly and banging on the floors “almost all the time until 2ish am.” The resident stated the tenants were still accessing the garden as he had noticed his plant pots had been moved, they were having BBQs on the fire escape and someone was ringing his doorbell at odd hours. He reiterated his request for permission to install CCTV at the property. The resident summarised his issues stating he had “never made a complaint about their noise even when you [the landlord] asked, but it’s becoming unbearable now…”
  21. On 25 July 2019, the resident emailed the landlord reporting the ASB issues were continuing and getting worse. He stated he had been threatened by the female tenant who had told him to watch his back. He advised he was writing to inform the landlord the “new threat/ASB, accessing the garden, unbearable heavy walking all day long and until late at night” had gotten worse since 24 July 2019.
  22. On 29 July 2019, there were several emails between the landlord and the resident. The landlord explained issues of ASB should continue to be reported but that action could only be taken if evidence of ASB was provided. The landlord confirmed the resident had sole use of the front and rear gardens. In response the resident asked the landlord how he was supposed to provide evidence of any noise nuisance without an inspection to confirm if there was adequate soundproofing under the laminate. He also asked the landlord how he was to provide evidence of ASB without CCTV, as he had already provided CAD numbers and photos. The landlord confirmed that it had asked the leaseholder to take urgent action to prevent any further ASB, including noise nuisance and that the matter would be referred to the legal department without further delay if action was not taken. The landlord provided diary sheets for the resident to complete and submit on a weekly basis.
  23. On 16 August 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and thanked him for his recent emails. It advised it would raise the issue of the wet washing being hung on the fire escape and falling into the garden with the leaseholder and request they did not have BBQs on the fire escape. The landlord explained the noise the resident was describing amounted to domestic noise, which is not considered to be noise nuisance. It asked the resident to report any noise nuisance to the enforcement team every time he experienced it. The landlord reminded the resident that clear evidence of ASB should be sent in diary sheet or bullet point format as this was clearer than the emails he was sending.
  24. On 19 August 2019, the resident’s support worker submitted a stage two complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The resident explained whilst some repairs had been resolved, others were outstanding, and he was still experiencing ASB. He stated he had previously raised the issue of soundproofing and had been told this would be explored. He again raised the issue of wanting sole access to the garden on a permanent basis and that the title register he had purchased showed only his property included the garden. He explained the situation was impacting on his ability to sleep and an urgent appointment had been scheduled for him at the hospital. He stated he wanted the issue of soundproofing to be taken seriously, for him to be given sole use of the garden permanently and for something to be done about the leaseholder’s tenants. He also wanted the outstanding repairs to be completed urgently and stated he was having CCTV installed for his safety.
  25. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 21 August 2019 and advised it would respond by 24 September 2019. The landlord sent an internal email advising the relevant teams of the stage two complaint and stated, “although some of the issues raised in this complaint have not been addressed at stage one, in the interests of expediency and at the request of the Housing Ombudsman I have agreed to cover everything in my response.”
  26. On 30 August 2019, the resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf advising further incidents had taken place since 19 August 2019. The resident alleged that on 24 August 2019 the tenants had been “extremely loud with their music on continuously” resulting in him calling the ‘noise abatement team’ at 10:30pm and 11:06pm. He further alleged that on 25 August 2019, the tenants had a BBQ on the fire escape, which he recorded on his phone. He exchanged words with the tenants and on returning to his property one of the tenants said “watch your back. We’ll kill you!” The resident advised he reported this incident to the police. On 26 August 2019, the resident had six CCTV cameras installed at the property and he wished to be reimbursed for this. He explained the situation was causing stress to his 71-year-old mother who lived with him, impacting on her ability to sleep, and had caused him to lose weight.
  27. On 2 September 2019, the landlord emailed the leaseholder outlining the most recent allegations. It made one final request for the leaseholder to meet with her tenants to discuss their behaviour and to agree on a way to resolve the situation. It explained that if no action were taken to prevent further ASB the matter would be referred to the legal department without further warning, which would place the leaseholders lease at risk. It requested an update from the leaseholder by 13 September 2019.
  28. The leaseholder responded advising she had seen the landlord’s resident the previous week and he had not mentioned anything about a BBQ on the fire escape. She advised she had sought legal advice as her understanding was that the garden was shared and stated that she had not experienced any issues with her tenants in the 10+ years she had rented out the property. She explained that her tenants had made counter allegations about the landlord’s resident and that her tenants had now requested to move as “they cannot stand the constant complaints to them living a normal life.” She advised the landlord that her tenants were moving out and new tenants were moving in. The leaseholder also stated that the landlord had provided no evidence of the allegations made and “therefore the allegation is based on false information.”
  29. On 9 September 2019, the landlord issued its stage two response. It explained the leaseholder had been issued with a final warning and that the matter would be referred to the legal department without further notice if the ASB did not stop. The landlord explained it did not reimburse for installation of CCTV and advised the resident he needed to apply for retrospective permission for the cameras as there are rules regarding their positioning that must be adhered to. The landlord explained that although it had agreed for the resident to have sole use of the garden, it did remain a communal space so the landlord could not give the resident permanent sole use of it. It explained jobs had been raised to address the windows, the chimney vents and damaged brickwork following the landlord’s visit in August. The landlord explained that it was in the process of exploring soundproofing, that it required specialist analysis and recommendations and that as it was an improvement not a repair, funding the work was more complex. It advised it would provide an update when possible. The landlord stated it had found no wrongdoing with how the issues raised had been handled and whilst it appreciated his frustrations and the impact the behaviour of the tenants was having on him; it was obliged to follow strict protocols.
  30. The resident brought his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service on 9 September 2020. The resident stated the flat above had laminate flooring, which he had been informed was not permitted in properties that were not on the ground floor. He stated the noise from the flat above had been a constant issue since he moved in and triggered memories of his previous accommodation where he was subject to harassment. He stated he should be awarded sole use of the garden because private tenants can change regularly and could cause issues in the future. He also stated he had not been told to remove the CCTV which he believed meant the installation had been accepted and therefore he should be reimbursed.
  31. On 17 December 2020, the landlord responded to this Service’s request for information. It explained it was not legally obliged to provide soundproofing as building regulations that apply now, are not applicable retrospectively. It also advised that even if it agreed to provide soundproofing and funding was successfully applied for, there are various methods of installation which are very disruptive, and the results are not guaranteed. The landlord explained it had taken steps to address the cause of the problem and was “working hard to liaise between residents.” The landlord advised there had been no further reports of noise to tenancy management “in the last year.” The landlord advised these actions were in accordance with its standard procedure; “to try to change behaviours before we apply a fix to the building as it is a less disruptive route for our [residents].”

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s allegations of antisocial behaviour

  1. The first evidence of the resident reporting nuisance by the leaseholder’s tenants is on 29 March 2019 during a telephone call with the landlord. He alleged the leaseholder’s tenants were throwing rubbish into the gardens and had made indirect threats to him. He felt threatened and wanted to install CCTV. On 8 April 2019, the landlord allocated the issues raised to the relevant team for a response.
  2. The housing management team responded to the resident’s concerns about his neighbours on 30 April 2019. It apologised for the delay in its response, advised the resident to report noise nuisance to the enforcement team and explained the various ways the resident could do this. It also advised it would write to the leaseholder’s tenants regarding the littering. This is a reasonable response based on the allegations made at this stage.
  3. The evidence indicates the landlord met with the resident in mid-June. The landlord confirmed it had spoken with the leaseholder about her tenants and due to their behaviour, it had decided to grant the resident sole use of the garden. The landlord explained to the resident that this arrangement was not permanent and would be kept under review. The landlord did not need to do this, and this demonstrates the landlord attempted to improve the situation for the resident.
  4. There were sporadic improvements in the tenants’ behaviour each time the resident made allegations to the landlord and the landlord subsequently spoke with the leaseholder, however the evidence shows these improvements were short lived.
  5. The resident stated on 10 July 2019 that he had not complained about the noise even though the landlord had asked him to, meaning the landlord was somewhat limited on what actions were open to it due to the lack of evidence. Despite this the landlord continued to liaise with its leaseholder regarding the behaviour of her tenants.
  6. Following further emails from the resident, the landlord reminded him again on 29 July that incidents of ASB should continue to be reported but that they needed to be substantiated by evidence and the landlord provided diary sheets for the resident’s completion. The resident was also reminded on 16 August to report noise nuisance to the enforcement team and to complete the diary sheets or provide bullet point lists of incidents of ASB to substantiate his allegations. There is no evidence the resident completed the diary sheets or made regular reports to the enforcement team as advised by the landlord. Whilst the resident has provided photos to support some of his allegations, they do not evidence the tenants exhibiting ASB and the landlord did act regarding the littering and clothes drying on the fire escape.
  7. Despite little evidence of the ASB and noise nuisance, the landlord issued the leaseholder with a final warning on 2 September 2019. In response the leaseholder advised her tenants were moving out. The landlord was unable to take any direct action against the tenants, but the evidence suggest they repeatedly liaised with the leaseholder to improve the behaviour of her tenants and the situation for the resident. Therefore, the actions taken by the landlord in this respect are reasonable in the circumstances.

Resident’s request for soundproofing

  1. The resident first raised soundproofing on 29 July 2019, but this was in relation to inspecting whether the flat above his property had adequate soundproofing under the laminate rather than having soundproofing installed.
  2. In his stage two complaint of 19 August 2019, he stated he had been advised this would be explored. Soundproofing is not a repair and therefore does not fall under the time scales stipulated in the repairs policy. It is not unreasonable that the landlord did not have an update regarding the soundproofing within three weeks of the request as it is such a complex piece of work. The landlord advised the resident again on 9 September 2019 that it was still exploring the soundproofing but explained the funding for it was complex. Given the complexities involved, it is not unreasonable that the landlord did not have a definitive update for the resident when it issued its stage two response.
  3. The landlord provided further information regarding the soundproofing in its letter to the Housing Ombudsman Service. Its explanation for why it has not installed soundproofing is a reasonable one and the fact there had not been any further reports of noise nuisance at the time of the letter indicates the steps it had taken to improve the situation had been successful. The actions taken were also in line with its procedure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord handled the resident’s request for soundproofing appropriately. If it has not already done so, the landlord should inform the resident of its decision not to install soundproofing and why.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident’s initial complaint was about the member of staff who completed his tenancy sign up being late to the appointment, being aggressive in her manner towards him, refusing to allow him to ask questions and issuing an ultimatum regarding the resident accepting the property. This complaint was acknowledged within the timeframe stipulated and passed to the relevant team for investigation as per the policy.
  2. The resident should have received a response to this complaint by 4 March 2019, but he did not, and he contacted the landlord on this date to request an update. He requested several updates between this date and the date he received his stage one response on 22 May 2019. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and advised the member of staff concerned had been spoken to. It acknowledged that the resident should have been updated following the conversation with the staff member and explained it had identified learning from the complaint which had been shared on its learning log.
  3. In following up his complaint about the behaviour of the landlord’s member of staff, the resident raised several repair issues, and these were logged and acted on. Although updates were provided on these repairs in the stage one complaint, as per the complaint policy these repair requests did not amount to complaints.
  4. The resident submitted a stage two complaint on 19 August 2019; however, the initial complaint was not escalated to stage two. The landlord agreed to include issues that had not been part of the stage one complaint for “expediency” and at the request of the Housing Ombudsman Service. The landlord could have required the resident to submit a new complaint about the outstanding repairs, ASB/noise nuisance, sound proofing and the sole use of the garden, however it did not, and the Service commends the landlord for its flexibility in this respect. The stage two response was issued in accordance with the timeframe required.
  5. In his stage one complaint, the resident stated he had raised the complaint as he did not want someone else to have a similar experience. His desired outcome was to receive an apology. Whilst there were significant delays in the complaint handling process at stage one, the resident did receive assurances that these had been discussed with the relevant member of staff and an apology was issued. He also received an apology for the delay and was advised learning had been identified and shared. The Ombudsman considers the learning identified a reasonable outcome to the delays as they did not have an impact on the issue complained about.

Landlord’s delay in replacing the windows

  1. The resident first reported a problem with his kitchen window on 17 January 2019. It is clear the landlord responded to this report on time and follow up work was booked. One of the kitchen windows was irreparable and the landlord confirmed the windows and doors were due to be replaced with double glazing as part of major works. The landlord confirmed in December 2020 that the major works were due to commence in January or February 2021, subject to cabinet approval. Major works such as this require the landlord to go out to tender which takes time, therefore the delay in the windows and doors being replaced is not unreasonable.

Resident’s request to be reimbursed for the installation of CCTV

  1. The resident informed the landlord several times that he wanted to install CCTV. It does not appear that the landlord advised the resident that it would not reimburse him for the installation of CCTV or that he needed to apply for permission before he installed it. The landlord has subsequently informed the resident that he needs to apply for retrospective permission for the cameras. It has also informed the Housing Ombudsman Service that should he wish to be reimbursed for the cameras, he needs to apply for retrospective permission. Whilst the landlord should have informed the resident at an earlier stage that it would not install or reimburse the resident for installation of CCTV, it is reasonable for the landlord to consider the request for reimbursement should the resident be granted permission for the cameras.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect to the delay in replacing the windows.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 54 there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the CCTV.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was limited in what actions it could take against the leaseholder’s tenants. It had also been provided with limited evidence of the ASB and noise nuisance alleged. Despite this the landlord liaised with its leaseholder regarding her tenant’s behaviour and gave the resident sole use of the garden as a temporary measure.
  2. The landlord does not have a legal obligation to provide soundproofing and in line with its policy, it has worked with the parties involved to improve the situation without undertaking costly and disruptive works to soundproof the property. Given the cost, the complexities of applying for funding and the disruption that would be caused to both parties this decision was a reasonable one.
  3. Whilst there was a significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one, the outcome the resident wanted was an apology and for the complaint to prevent someone else having the same experience. Therefore, the delay in the landlord responding to the complaint did not impact on the resident’s desired outcome. Furthermore, the landlord correctly identified learning and disseminated this using its learning log. This is a reasonable outcome in the circumstances. The repair issues raised during conversations with the landlord did not amount to a complaint and the landlord did not need to respond to any of the additional concerns raised by the resident in its stage two response, as they had not been raised and considered at stage one.
  4. The landlord has confirmed that the windows and doors will be replaced as part of major works. This takes time due to the requirements of going out to tender and the number of properties involved in the scheme. The landlord has confirmed works were due to start in January/February 2021 and should advice the resident of when the works will commence at his home.
  5. The landlord does not have a budget for the installation of CCTV and the resident has not applied for permission to have the cameras installed. Whilst the landlord should have informed the resident it would not ordinarily cover the cost of CCTV, it has indicated to the Housing Ombudsman Service that it will consider reimbursing the resident for the installation of the CCTV if he successfully applies for retrospective permission. This is a reasonable decision, and the landlord should advise the resident how to apply for retrospective permission.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to advise the resident when the new windows and doors will be installed at his home.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord to explain to the resident how to apply for retrospective permission for the CCTV.
  3. If it has not already done so, the landlord should inform the resident of its decision not to install soundproofing and why.
  4. The landlord to seek its own legal advice on the respective rights to use the garden for both its tenant and its leaseholder, and set this out clearly for both parties.