Haringey London Borough Council (202123994)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123994

Haringey London Borough Council

4 October 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident’s property is a ground–floor flat. The neighbour she has raised complaints about lives in the property directly above hers.
3. The resident suffers from depression.
4. The resident has been reporting ASB about her upstairs neighbour since at least 2014. The resident has reported loud noises, the banging and dropping of heavy items, and disturbances throughout both day and night. The resident’s representative raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB on 7 February 2021. Following this, the landlord said it would investigate the ASB. It told the resident it would visit both her neighbour and her to discuss the situation. It also said it would investigate the flooring in the upstairs property and if this had breached the terms of the tenancy. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 23 February 2021, arranging a visit on 18 March 2021.
5. The landlord has referenced e-mailing the resident in June 2021 to evidence an agreement for funding carpet with underlay to try to reduce the noise problems. It also referenced writing to the resident in September 2021, advising that it would not be taking any further action. The landlord has not been able to provide evidence of any of its actions since 23 February 2021.
6. The resident called this Service on 31 January 2022 to raise a new complaint about the landlord. She said she had been suffering from noise nuisance for several years. She also mentioned her landlord had said it would provide a carpet for her neighbour to mitigate the issue but had failed to do so. The resident’s complaint was forwarded to the landlord on the same day. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 March 2022. The landlord did not uphold her complaint. It said it felt it had investigated her complaints as best it could and was continuing to offer support and to try and resolve the situation. It said it had visited the property and found no gym equipment, or heavy items as the resident had reported. It followed this up with an e-mail on 10 March 2022, saying that it felt the noise was normal everyday domestic use of premises and that it would not be able to take further action.
7. The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 27 June 2022, saying she disagreed with the stage 1 response. She felt the ongoing ASB had left her with no peace in her own home. She said she would like further investigation as to why the neighbour was not provided with a carpet. Following discussions with this Service, the landlord wrote its stage 2 response on 9 December 2022 however did not provide the resident with this until 31 January 2023. It said it had not received any further reports of ASB from the resident since June 2021 and was not aware the resident was still suffering from ASB. It apologised for not pursuing the suggestion of putting a carpet down and said that it would now be inspecting the neighbour’s property to consider this. It reiterated however that it felt the noise was normal domestic everyday use of the premises and said it felt it had investigated the resident’s reports fairly.
8. The resident confirmed she wished for this Service to investigate her complaint on 14 February 2023. The resident remained unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of ASB. She felt the landlord had not taken any action. She said she would like the landlord to put carpet in the alleged perpetrator’s property to control the ASB and for her neighbour to be moved out of the property. She felt the landlord had not treated her fairly throughout this process. The resident has reported that the ASB is still ongoing, and the evidence from the landlord suggests it has now begun an investigation into these new allegations.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

9. Prior to making this complaint, the resident had previously made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her ASB case in February 2021. As the resident did not escalate this complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process and instead made a second complaint in January 2022, the events prior to the earlier complaint have not been considered as part of this investigation.
10. This investigation has therefore considered the landlord’s actions after it provided its previous stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2021. This investigation has also not considered the ongoing ASB that has been reported since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. As these were not considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, these have not been considered as part of this complaint.
11. In cases concerning noise nuisance and ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s issues and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise

12. The landlord’s ASB policy has five stages. These are as follows:
    1. First point of contact. This is where the landlord logs a report, contacts the complainant for an interview and assigns this as either urgent or a non-urgent report.
    2. Initial interview. This is where a vulnerability assessment is completed using the Risk Assessment Matrix and any further action plans are agreed.
    3. Investigation and early intervention. These are the actions the landlord takes prior to legal proceedings. These can include interviewing perpetrators, mediation, and utilising noise recording equipment.
    4. Enforcement. This is where the landlord moves onto legal possession proceedings.
    5. Case closure. This can happen at any time, but the landlord notes this should normally only happen with the agreement of the victims. It also says that ‘once a case is closed, the action and the reason for it must be put in writing’.
13. In this instance, the landlord has failed to complete all the actions it has said it would under its policy. It has not followed the formal interview structure nor completed a vulnerability assessment. It had steps available to it that it did not explore such as mediation or sending a member of staff to spend several hours in the property to witness the noise first hand. It has not provided evidence that it has considered these as part of its investigation.
14. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to decide not to undertake investigative actions it had previously completed within the prior 12 months. However, if the landlord felt that these were similar reports and it had already responded appropriately, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to explain its decision not to follow certain lines of enquiry. The landlord failed to do so and therefore did not adequately explain to the resident why it did not undertake certain actions outlined in its ASB policy.
15. This Service has asked the landlord to provide the letter it sent to the resident in September 2021, explaining that it was closing its investigation into the ASB. It has failed to provide this, and it does not appear the resident was ever made aware that the landlord had finished its investigation into the ASB. The landlord’s policy says this must be put in writing. This Service would expect the landlord to be able to evidence this and it is unreasonable that it has been unable to do so.
16. The landlord also made a commitment to investigate putting down carpet and replacing the laminate flooring in the property above. This was discussed in the letter to the neighbour sent on 23 February 2021. The landlord again failed to follow up on this and failed to provide proper updates to the resident about this. It is at the landlord’s discretion if it does decide to put this flooring down, however, it needed to provide the resident with a full explanation for its decision.
17. The landlord has shown evidence that it is currently investigating new reports of ASB and once again considering laying carpets in the property above. It is recommended that the landlord continue to follow its policy in seeking a resolution for the resident. It should ensure that it considers options that it has not previously undertaken such as mediation and randomised visits to hear the noise.
18. The resident has made requests for her neighbour to be moved out of their property. In order to take formal action against its tenants for ASB, such as issuing tenancy warnings, injunctions or eviction, the landlord requires strong corroborative evidence to support the allegations. It would be unreasonable for a landlord to take action against its tenants based on allegations alone without significant supporting evidence. Eviction is a legal process, and the landlord would need to go to court to seek permission to evict a tenant. There is no indication that the landlord has sufficient evidence that would allow it to move, or evict, the neighbour.
19. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from a neighbour. The landlord failed to follow its own policies and did not properly communicate with the resident throughout this process. This is likely to have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. For its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £200. This is in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance which recommends this amount for failings that have had an adverse affect on a resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

20. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will provide its response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
21. The landlord first received the resident’s complaint on 31 January 2022, after this Service forwarded it to them. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 March 2022, 28 days later. This was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timescale, and it failed to provide the resident with updates informing her of the delay.
22. At stage 2, the resident sent an escalation request to the landlord 27 June 2022. On this occasion, the landlord failed to provide its stage 2 response until 31 January 2023. This was over 6 months later.
23. The landlord did write to the resident on 5 August 2022, advising it had received a request for escalation, but it had been unable to locate the specific letter requesting this. It asked the resident to provide this to it so the complaint could be escalated. It wrote to her again on 2 September 2022. The resident then wrote a letter to the landlord on 18 September 2022, describing her reasons for requesting an escalation. The landlord again said it did not receive this.
24. After discussions with this Service, the landlord said it would provide its stage 2 response to the resident by 22 November 2022. It failed to keep to this deadline. The landlord did not send its stage 2 complaint response to the resident until 31 January 2023. This was despite telling this Service it had sent this.
25. The landlord’s failure to keep to the timescales set out in its policies represented maladministration. Its failure to answer the resident’s correspondence caused additional distress and inconvenience. It also could have tried calling her to discuss the reason she wanted to escalate her complaint rather than contributing to additional delay by requiring a copy of the escalation letter.
26. For its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £200. This is in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. The landlord should write to the resident to:
    1. Apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Offer to visit her to complete a vulnerability assessment in line with its ASB policy (if it has not already done so).
30. The landlord should pay the resident £400, consisting of:
    1. £200 for its failure to deal with her reports of ASB and noise in line with the terms of its ASB policy.
    2. £200 for its failure to deal with the associated complaints in the timescales specified in its complaints policy.
31. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to evidence compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

32. The landlord should holistically review the ASB case, seeking to attempt any new means of investigation and intervention it has not previously attempted, and provide the resident with an action plan within four weeks of the date of this report. This should include consideration of measures like mediation, speaking with external agencies and arranging visits to the resident’s property to assess the level and impact of noise.