Haringey London Borough Council (202113789)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113789

Haringey London Borough Council

11 May 2023

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 response to address the resident’s reports of:
1. Interference with the water supply into the property.
2. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a two bedroom first floor flat.
The resident’s mother makes the complaint on his behalf. For ease of reference the mother’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s. The mother lives with her son at the property.

Summary of events

On 29 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that it was unsatisfactory that despite reporting that the tenant who lived in the property below (the neighbour) was interfering with the property’s water supply it had taken “no action” to resolve the situation. The resident confirmed that he had first reported the problem in April 2020.
On 20 April 2021 the resident wrote to request a response to his communication dated 29 March 2021. Within his correspondence the resident also noted that he was concerned regarding the “behaviour of [a] tenancy officer (the TO) whom for some reason [appeared] to have personal issue with [his] household” (no further details were given). The resident confirmed that he therefore wanted to raise a formal complaint about these matters.
On 17 April 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a consent form so that his mother was able to act as his representative in respect of the complaint. This was returned to the landlord on 1 June 2021.
On 15 June 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at stage one of its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of interruption of water supply:
  1. The neighbour disputed that they were responsible for disrupting the water supply into the property by tampering.
  2. It had no evidence to support that the neighbour had tampered with the water supply into the property however it acknowledged that the stopcock for the property’s water supply was located in the neighbour’s property.
  3. In order to resolve the matter it had agreed to carry out works so that each property had its own stopcock.
  4. Once an appointment for the works were scheduled it would inform the resident and neighbour.
2. In respect of poor case management by the TO:
  1. It was sorry that the resident had receive “no communication” regarding its action plan to address the interruption of water supply. It explained that the proposed works to resolve the situation had only recently been agreed, however it acknowledged that updates should have been provided at an earlier time to “remove any stress and anxiety”.
  2. The TO had confirmed that she had “no personal issues with [the resident]”. It confirmed that the TO had worked hard to try and resolve the resident’s concerns regarding the interruption of water supply.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may escalate his complaint if he was not happy with its response.
On 22 June 2022 the resident responded to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. While he welcomed the news that works would be undertaken to provide the property with its own stopcock it was unsatisfactory that an appointment was yet to be scheduled.
2. The landlord had not addressed other ASB by the neighbour. This is the first mention of ASB that the Ombudsman has identified in relation to the complaint.
3. The landlord had not addressed the TO’s repeated failure to include his mother in on all correspondence in relation to his tenancy. He noted that he had an issue with his “cognitive function”.
On 5 July 2021 the landlord provided an addendum to its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of interrupted water supply:
  1. While it acknowledged that it would have been “helpful” to have provided an appointment for the works to address the problem within its stage one response it was unable to do so as it was in the process of “pursuing [its] repairs team”.
  2. An appointment had been booked for 7 July 2021 to “rerun mains pipework and install an additional stopcock” so that both properties had responsibility for their own water supply.
2. In respect of other ASB:
  1. Its ASB team had investigated the resident’s concerns that the neighbour was causing ASB.
  2. The police had confirmed that there were no signs of drug activity in the neighbour’s property so it had taken no further action.
  3. Its safeguarding team had investigated the resident’s safeguarding allegations against the neighbour and found no evidence to support the concerns raised.
  4. In response to the resident’s report that the neighbour was causing noise nuisance its noise team placed the property and neighbour’s property “on high alert” to prioritise call outs if complaints were received. It understood that the noise team had not taken any action against the neighbour. It confirmed that the resident should report any new noise nuisance to the noise team. It also provided the resident with a link to its noise app.
1. In respect of poor case management by the TO:
  1. It was sorry if the resident’s mother had not been included in all correspondence relating to his tenancy since the request was made. It confirmed that it would speak with the TO to remind them of the request.
  2. It would record on the resident’s file that all correspondence should be copied to his mother to ensure that the request was always met.
The landlord concluded by reiterating that the resident may request to escalate his complaint if he remained unhappy with its stage one response.
In September 2021 the resident contacted this Service to request assistance as the matters subject of his complaint remained outstanding. The resident explained:
1. Work to install a stopcock in the property had not been completed as the landlord had been unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property despite multiple attempts.
2. The landlord had failed to address ongoing ASB by the neighbour.
On 24 September 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident to ask him to confirm why he was unhappy with its stage one response so that it could escalate the complaint.
The resident replied on the same day. The resident explained that he would like to escalate the complaint because:
1. The landlord’s stage one did not address all aspects of the complaint.
2. The landlord’s communication was poor, including no updates on next steps.
3. The landlord had failed to gain access to the neighbour’s property to separate the water mains supply and therefore he continued to experience an interrupted water supply.
4. The landlord had failed to address ongoing ASB by the neighbour which included harassment, drug activity and noise nuisance. He noted that he had provided the landlord with a USB stick containing evidence of ASB by the neighbour in August 2021.
5. The landlord had failed to address nuisance by the resident’s pets which included “three dogs and cats”. He explained that the animals fouled and trespassed within his section of the garden.
Within his correspondence the resident also noted:
1. He had safeguarding concerns in respect of the neighbour’s child as they were kept off of school unnecessarily.
2. He believed that he was at risk from retaliation by the neighbour as his tenancy records had been accessed by a member of the neighbour’s family who worked for the landlord.
3. His and his mother’s mental and physical health had been impacted as a result of the neighbour’s actions.
The resident concluded by confirming that he would like a “managed move” to a new property to ensure his “safety and wellbeing”.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that its communication with the resident had been unsatisfactory. It explained that this was due to staff shortages caused by a restructure.
2. The resident had provide a USB with ASB evidence “during August 2021”. It confirmed that there was a “slight delay” in forwarding the information to its ASB team, however this was done on 27 August 2021.
3. It was experiencing difficult in gaining access to the neighbour’s property to separate the water supply. It confirmed that a new appointment was scheduled for 9 November 2021.
4. A task had been raised to investigate dog fouling in the resident’s garden. It apologised for the delay in progressing this and explained this was again due to staff shortages. It confirmed that cats were legally free to roam and therefore it was unable to prevent this.
5. Its ASB team had carried out “an extensive investigation” into the resident’s allegations of ASB by the neighbour. It confirmed that “none of the allegations were substantiated”. It noted:
  1. No evidence of drug activity or noise nuisance was identified by its ASB team or the police during visits to the property. It explained that it could take action where police identify criminal activity.
  2. No evidence was found to support that the neighbour was digging out a basement during a visit to the property.
6. It had investigated the resident’s safeguarding concerns. It confirmed that no evidence was found to substantiate the allegations.
7. It was unable to grant the resident a management move to a new property. It confirmed that the resident should contact his tenancy support officer to discuss potential options to move.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it was “unable to find fault in how the complaint [had] been dealt with”. The landlord set out the resident’s right to refer his complaint to this Service.
In an update to this Service in February 2022 the resident confirmed that while separation of the mains supply took place in January 2022 it had not resolved the issue as the neighbour “still [had] control of the water supply serving [the property]”. The resident also noted that “other acts of ASB [had] been reported to [the landlord] without response”.
In a further update to this Service in April 2023 the resident confirmed that the property continued to experience an interrupted water supply and the neighbour continued to engage in ASB. The resident stated that the landlord had not taken action to address the matters. The resident noted that he had raised a legal disrepair case with the landlord in March 2022 which included “disrepair to water supply”. The Ombudsman understands that the legal disrepair case has not proceeded to court.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to address the resident’s reports of interference with the water supply into the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water. The property’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for “keeping in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water…” In accordance with these obligations the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s report of a problem causing issues with the water supply into the property.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its response to the resident’s allegation that the neighbour was tampering with the property’s water supply.
The Ombudsman can see that on 3 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord advising that “the water supply [was] being interfered with [which had] been going on for a few months”. In response, on 6 April 2020, the landlord confirmed that once the current situation with Covid-19 eased it would like to meet with the resident to discuss the situation. The Ombudsman has not identified any further action by the landlord following its response in 2020. This is unsatisfactory. While Covid-19 may have prevented immediate action by the landlord the Ombudsman considers that when restrictions began to ease in summer 2020 investigation into the issue would have been appropriate and achievable.
Its records show that in January 2021 the landlord wrote to the neighbour to explain it had received a report alleging they were tampering with the property’s water supply. While this was appropriate as a first intervention to provide the neighbour with a right of reply and an opportunity to modify their behaviour if necessary, it is unsatisfactory that the landlord delayed in taking this action by a period of approximately eight months. The landlord updated the resident with the outcome of its intervention, explaining that the neighbour denied any wrong doing.
In February 2021 the resident provided the landlord with a report following a visit by the water company. The report set out that the water company “does not have any issues at point of entry – believe issues are with downstairs flat touching stop valve serving [the property]”. The evidence shows that in response the landlord arranged a repair appointment to inspect the neighbour’s property on 4 March 2021. The records confirm that no repair issue was identified. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged an appointment to inspect the neighbour’s property to investigate the issue with the property’s water supply in order to determine next steps.
In April 2021 the landlord confirmed that in order to resolve the issue with the water supply into the property it would look to rerun the mains water pipework to install a stopcock in each property. This was appropriate as the landlord understood that the neighbour had the potential to disrupt the property’s water supply due to the current configuration of the pipework. The evidence shows that funding was approved for the work in mid-June 2021. From the evidence it is not clear why it took two months for a funding decision to be made. The Ombudsman considers this to be a protracted period of time.
The evidence shows that the landlord gained access to the neighbour’s property on 10 January 2022 to complete works to separate the water supply, which was approximately seven months from the funding approval in June 2021.
While the landlord has provided evidence that it was attempting to gain access during the period June to January 2021, which included in July 2021, November 2021 and December 2021, overall the Ombudsman is not satisfied with its approach. When it became clear that the neighbour, who was its own tenant, was not engaging by denying access, the landlord should have looked to have taken a more robust approach to compel the occupant to grant access to complete the work, such as considering warning letters or legal action. The Ombudsman cannot see this that the landlord did this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s ‘light touch’ approach in pursing the neighbour, by making multiple repair appointments, impacted adversely on the resident, including uncertainty, distress and inconvenience for a prolonged period of time.
Immediately following the works to separate the water supply into the property the resident reported that the situation has not improved as the neighbour had access to “another value”. In response and on 11 January 2022 the landlord advised that its contractors “confirmed that all works [were] complete” however in light of the resident’s concerns it would attend on 17 January 2022 with “additional engineers”. This was appropriate in order to assess the situation following the works and whether additional intervention was needed. The Ombudsman understands that the appointment was delayed until 9 February 2022. Following the appointment and on 23 February 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it would be “liaising with [the water company] to resolve the ongoing water pressure supply” into the property.
In an internal email dated 18 March 2022 the landlord set out that it did contact the water company to discuss the matter who advised that the “only solution [was] for [the water company] to excavate the mains on the highway and run a separate mains supply so that both properties [had] their own supply… [the water company] would have to do the works and recharge…” Despite the landlord acknowledging within its internal records, including on 11 July 2022, that water pressure “still seems to be an issue” for the resident, the Ombudsman cannot see that it has taken any significant steps to act on the advice of the water company or looked to explore any other solutions to provide a remedy. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord has failed to undertaken any additional intervention since February 2022, following the repair in January 2022, when it committed to resolving the ongoing water pressure issue into the property.
Between June 2021 and December 2021 the Ombudsman has not identified that the resident was provided with regular updates regarding progress to complete the works to separate the property’s water supply. This is unsatisfactory. Regular updates would have been appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations and to keep him informed. In not doing so the resident would have experienced uncertainty and distress, in addition to feeling that his situation was not being taken seriously. In responding to the complaint the landlord apologised that its communication had been unsatisfactory. While the landlord’s apology was appropriate, to acknowledge its shortcoming, alone it does not amount to reasonable redress as it is not proportionate to the impact felt by the resident.

The landlord’s response to address the resident’s reports of ASB

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received in the timeframe of the complaint, and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, followed good practice and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he has reported have caused significant distress and upset.
The landlord sets out that ASB is behaviour that can affect a person’s “quality of life and peaceful enjoyment of [their] property”.
As the resident’s ASB allegations fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it was therefore necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The landlord has also provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its handling of the resident’s ASB concerns. Its records document that in response to the allegations the landlord undertook the following interventions during the period under investigation:
1. Reviewing the resident’s evidence.
2. Writing to the neighbour regarding the resident’s allegations about them.
3. Meeting with the neighbour to discuss the resident’s allegations.
4. Inspecting the neighbour’s property for signs of drug activity.
5. Liaising with the police regarding alleged drug activity by the neighbour.
6. Providing the resident with diary sheets.
7. Attending the property to witness noise nuisance.
8. Making a referral to its noise team for priority call outs.
9. Making a referral to safeguarding regarding the resident’s allegations about the welfare of the neighbour’s child.
This Service acknowledges the resident’s view that the landlord has not taken adequate or proportionate steps to investigate and address his allegations of ASB by the neighbour. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions were reasonable to establish whether the resident’s allegations could be substantiated or not, and to provide the neighbour with an opportunity to modify their behaviour where it was found that they were conducting their tenancy in an unsatisfactory manner.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint in a timely manner the Ombudsman has identified a number of shortcomings with its responses.
While the complaint was live the resident expressed that his and his mother’s mental and physical health had been impacted as a result of the matters subject of the complaint. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident in this regard. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should carefully consider a resident’s reported circumstances or vulnerabilities when responding to a complaint. Additionally the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord provided a full explanation setting out why it was unable to organise a management move for the resident in response to the complaint. In denying the resident’s request it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained why he did not meet the criteria for a management move in line with its polices and procedures. Finally the landlord failed to address the resident’s allegation that his tenancy records were being shared with the neighbour by one of its officers. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s reports in order to provide reassurance regarding his personal data and to demonstrate an impartial approach to dealing with its tenants.
In responding to the complaint it was appropriate that the landlord apologised that it had failed to always action the resident’s request to include his mother in all correspondence in relation to his tenancy, in addition to committing to doing so going forwards. The apology was proportionate to the service failure identified.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to address the resident’s reports of interference with the water supply into the property.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to address the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to address the resident’s reports of interference with the water supply into the property

The landlord’s response to address the resident’s reports of interference with the water supply into the property was unsatisfactory because:
1. It failed to respond to the resident’s initially report of a problem with the water supply in April 2020.
2. While it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to separate the water supply into the property its handling of the works was unsatisfactory as it failed to communicate with the resident regarding the works and there were significant delays in arranging for the works to be completed.
3. Despite committing to investigate the resident’s ongoing reports of problems with the water supply following its action to separate the water supply in January 2022 it is unsatisfactory that the landlord has failed to provide evidence that it has taken any additional intervention to resolve the matter.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to address the resident’s reports of ASB

The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately. This including reviewing the resident’s evidence, meeting with the neighbour, inspecting the neighbour’s property and liaising with the police. These actions were appropriate in order to gather evidence to establish whether the resident’s allegations could be substantiated or not, and to provide the neighbour with an opportunity to modify their behaviour where it was found that they were conducting their tenancy in an unsatisfactory manner.

The landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment

The landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory as it failed to:
1. Respond to, or demonstrate that it had considered, the resident’s reports concerning the impact the situation was having on him and his mother.
2. Explain why it was unable to organise a management move for the resident in response to the complaint in line with its policies and procedures.
3. Respond to the resident’s allegation that his tenancy records were being shared with the neighbour by one of its officers.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive to acknowledge that its handling of his reports of interference with the water supply was not satisfactory.
The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this determination write to the resident providing an action plan detailing the steps it will take to investigate and resolve the problems affecting the water supply into the property. The landlord should provide the resident with regular updates, at least two weekly, while the action plan is being progressed.
The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £1800 for the inconvenience and distress the resident has experienced as a result of the landlord’s response to and handling of his reports of a problem affecting the water supply into the property.
2. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

In light of the resident’s report to the Ombudsman that the neighbour continues to engage in ASB, the landlord should contact the resident to gain further information and to update him on action it has been taking. On receipt of the information the landlord should carry out a risk assessment and produce an action plan, providing the outcome to the resident detailing any action or investigations where appropriate. The landlord should complete this recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should ensure that it responds to all aspects of a resident’s complaint under its complaint procedure to ensure that they are given a comprehensive response to their concerns and fully understand its position.