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

Haringey London Borough Council (202222055)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222055

Haringey London Borough Council

31 July 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), specifically:
    1. Smoking in communal areas.
    2. Disposal of waste.
    3. Harassment and threatening behaviour.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and landlord share a secure tenancy agreement. The property is located in a block with other flats, sharing communal areas.
  2. The resident reported ASB to the landlord in May 2022, saying they had witnessed a neighbour smoking in the communal area of the block. The resident told the landlord this was impacting their health, as well as their child’s health. The resident also explained they had requested police involvement following an altercation with the neighbour. The landlord and resident agreed that the resident would monitor the situation for a month and report any further ASB incidents.
  3. The resident reported smoking in the communal areas again on 31 May 2022. The landlord made an internal request for action to be taken to address the ongoing ASB issue. The request was made on 21 June 2022.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in July 2022. The resident said the landlord had not taken their reports of ASB and associated harassment seriously. The resident said items had been stolen from outside their property and there had been an attempted burglary. They also provided details of the neighbour they believed to be responsible for the ASB.
  5. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response in July 2022. It acknowledged the ongoing ASB issues and requested crime reference numbers for incidents which had already been reported to the police. The landlord referred to the resident having said the issue had improved due to the installation of CCTV, but that ASB still occurred. It requested that the resident continue to report verbal abuse or threatening behaviour to the police.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage one complaint response in August 2022. They provided the requested crime references and additional information about the neighbour they believed to be responsible for ASB. The resident also said that they did not know what else they could do, as they had already provided photographic and video evidence to the police. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB and requested escalation to stage two of the complaint process.
  7. The landlord contacted the leaseholder of the neighbour’s property in August 2022. It outlined the allegations of ASB as “smoking in communal areas that might cause a nuisance or damage”. The landlord also referred to its own responsibilities and those of the leaseholder and requested the leaseholder to confirm receipt of the letter.
  8. The resident reported further ASB to the landlord in September 2022. They said that their neighbour had “dragged a rubbish bag through the block” which had left a trail of liquid, which was not cleaned afterwards. The resident provided the landlord with evidence of this incident and sent a further email with more evidence of ASB, dating back to May 2022.
  9. The resident made another report of ASB to the landlord in September 2022. They said that a visitor to their neighbour’s property had been “naked” and smoking in the communal area. The resident said they had to walk past the visitor with their children and provided the landlord with evidence of the incident.
  10. The landlord made an internal request for action to be taken to address the ongoing ASB issue on 26 September 2022. The landlord completed an interview with the resident and conducted an evaluation of the impact the ASB was having on the resident. It confirmed that it would be contacting the leaseholder regarding the ongoing ASB, and that the resident should continue to report any further incidents. The landlord also said it would be asking landlord staff, such as estate management, to provide evidence when/if ASB is witnessed. It said it would contact the resident again on 1 October 2022 to discuss the issue and whether there had been improvements.
  11. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September to say that it was unable to provide a stage two complaint response at that time. The landlord explained it would require an additional 10 working days.
  12. The leaseholder of the neighbour’s property contacted the landlord in October 2022 to state their tenant (the neighbour being complained about) was not responsible for ASB.
  13. The resident contacted the landlord requesting an update in November 2022, as they had not received a stage two complaint response. The landlord issued its response on 9 December 2022 and apologised for the delay. It provided the same information included in the stage one complaint response when addressing the resident’s concerns about ASB.
  14. The resident contacted HOS as they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB. To resolve their complaint, the resident requested that the landlord take appropriate action to prevent further incidents of ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint included concerns about the suitability of their property. This issue has previously been investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and, therefore, it has not been considered during this investigation. This is because the Housing Ombudsman will not investigate matters which have previously been investigated by another Ombudsman. Instead, this Service has addressed the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph (39)a, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s reports of ASB after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint in December 2022. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to their recent ASB reports they can raise this as a new complaint to the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied once they have received the landlord’s final response to their new complaint they may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman to investigate separately at that stage.

Smoking in communal areas and disposal of waste

  1. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out what it considers to be ASB and the actions it can take following a report of ASB. The policy describes ASB 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.”
    3. “Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
  3. The issues the resident experienced and reported to the landlord would have reasonably met the landlord’s definition of ASB. While not all the actions set out in the landlord’s ASB policy would have been appropriate, it was reasonable for it to have investigated and taken some action given the continued impact the ASB incidents were having on the resident.
  4. The landlord showed a willingness to address the resident’s concerns about both the smoking in communal areas and the issues with waste disposal. It conducted separate interviews for each issue to ascertain the details and the impact it was having on the resident. It completed an evaluation of the impact, assigning a “score” to the two types of ASB, which suggested appropriate agencies the landlord could work with to address the issues. The landlord also wrote to the leaseholder of the neighbouring property and other residents about ASB on more than one occasion, in an attempt to prevent issues from reoccurring and to gather more evidence.
  5. While the landlord may have demonstrated a desire to resolve the issue, it must also have acted within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s ASB policy refers to taking “prompt, appropriate and decisive action…to deal with ASB before it escalates.” The ASB policy also provides timescales for both “urgent” and “non-urgent” reports of ASB. It states the landlord should respond to “urgent” reports within 1 working day, and “non-urgent” reports within 5 working days.
  6. It is reasonable for the landlord to have treated the resident’s reports of ASB as “non-urgent”. In doing so, it acted appropriately following the initial report of ASB – specifically, smoking – and within the timescales. However, the landlord was delayed in its response to further reports of smoking and taking action following the resident’s report of issues with rubbish. The resident reported smoking in communal areas again on 31 May 2022, but a letter was not sent to the leaseholder until 17 August 2022, after the resident had raised a complaint. The resident also reported an issue with rubbish on 6 September 2022. The landlord did not act until 26 September 2022.
  7. This Service understands it can take the time to investigate and determine appropriate action when addressing ASB. The landlord showed it was aware of the issue as it was communicating internally about the need for action and asking for the resident to be informed. However, the landlord’s ASB policy provides clear timescales for a response, which it did not follow. It failed to take appropriate action within the agreed timescales, which meant the resident continued experiencing ASB without the landlord’s intervention. The landlord also failed to communicate the delays when handling reports of ASB. The landlord could have provided the resident with updates to explain any delays. The updates would not have resolved the issue but may have provided the resident with peace of mind that their reported ASB was being handled appropriately. The delays in taking action also meant the resident continued to invest time and effort into dealing with, gathering evidence of, and reporting ASB, which is likely to have caused distress.
  8. The resident’s continued reports of ASB show the action the landlord took in the first instance was not successful. This Service acknowledges the landlord must start somewhere when acting to resolve ASB. However, when one approach is not successful the landlord should try another. In this case, the landlord sent letters to the leaseholder about the ongoing ASB. The letters did not improve the situation and the leaseholder also suggested the cause of the ASB was not one of its tenants. Therefore, the landlord should have considered different action to prevent ASB from occurring and investigated further to establish the cause. It could have looked at the feasibility of arranging patrols of the communal areas, or signage to remind residents of the no-smoking policy in communal areas and process of storing/removing waste.
  9. Given the delays in taking action following the resident’s additional reports of ASB and the landlord’s failure to consider alternative actions when the ASB continued, this Service has determined it must act to put things right. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge those failings.
  10. The ASB continued for a period of at least 6 months, which meant the resident was living with the issues not knowing if the landlord was acting to prevent it. This was likely to have been having a significant impact on the resident, especially as they were living with young children. This service has considered the impact and the failings identified during this investigation and has found £300 compensation to be proportionate.

Harassment and threatening behaviour

  1. The resident raised concerns about the behaviour of their neighbour to the landlord. They said there had been incidents of harassment and threatening behaviour, as well as an altercation over smoking in the communal area. The resident reported these incidents to the police, who took no further action due to lack of evidence.
  2. It was appropriate for the landlord to give the resident, and other residents of the block advice to contact the police. Some of the issues related to criminal offences, such as verbal and physical violence and reported drug-taking. The police have different powers to the landlord, with the ability to take action against perpetrators of criminal activity. This makes the police best placed to investigate such matters, rather than the landlord. The landlord would, however, be expected to assist the police if necessary.
  3. As the police took no further action following the reported harassment and threatening behaviour, it would have been unfair of the landlord to then take action against the neighbour. The landlord can only reasonably take action against residents for ASB if there is sufficient evidence to confirm the ASB. The landlord should not take action based on allegations alone without evidence. If the police took no further action due to lack of evidence, it would be reasonable for the landlord to come to the same conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support further action. However, it would still be expected to acknowledge and appropriately record any further reports of ASB. The evidence provided shows that no further reports of harassment were made after the resident had provided crime reference numbers, on 9 August 2022. Therefore, the landlord was not expected to have taken any additional preventative action.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy provides information about how residents can make a complaint and the timescales for responding. The policy details a two-stage approach and sets out the timescales as:
    1. Receipt of a formal complaint will be acknowledged within 2 working days.
    2. Stage one complaints will be dealt with within 10 working days.
    3. Stage two complaints will be dealt with within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 July 2022. The landlord responded within the appropriate timescales, on 13 July 2022. The resident then requested escalation to stage two of the complaint process on 9 August 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2022 to explain it would be unable to provide a response but aimed to respond within 10 working days. The landlord responded 87 working days after the escalation request, on 9 December 2022.
  3. This was a substantial delay in responding and demonstrated a failure to provide a reasonable level of service to the resident. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding in its stage two complaint response. However, this Service has found the apology to not be proportionate to the length of delay and the impact this will have had on the resident, having an unresolved complaint about continued ASB.
  4. While the landlord must respond within the complaint policy timescales, it should also provide an appropriate response. The response should address the resident’s concerns, set out the landlord’s findings and details of any action it will be taking as a result of those findings. The stage two response issued to the resident on 9 December 2022 included the same information given at stage one. It did not acknowledge or mention the ongoing smoking or waste issues and again requested information about the neighbour causing the issue. This demonstrated the landlord’s failure to understand the resident’s complaint and provide an appropriate response. It did not acknowledge the issues relating to their neighbour’s behaviour, smoking in communal areas or issue with waste disposal.
  5. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge those failings. Given the substantial delays, the impact those delays will have had on the resident and the landlord’s failure to address the complaint appropriately at stage two of its complaints process, this Service has determined compensation of £200 to be fair and proportionate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB relating to smoking in communal areas and waste disposal.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB relating to harassment and threatening behaviour.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £500 compensation, made up of:
    1. £300 for its handling of ASB, specifically smoking in communal areas and waste disposal.
    2. £200 for its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The evidence the landlord has provided suggests that ASB, particularly smoking in the communal areas, continued after the complaint process had been exhausted. The landlord should consider alternative actions to those already taken, to prevent further instances of this form of ASB. It should update the resident with any actions it intends to take regarding the ongoing ASB.
  2. The landlord should review its process of updating residents regarding ongoing ASB issues to ensure they are kept informed, particularly when there are delays.
  3. The landlord should run refresher training with all relevant staff on complaint handling, particularly on providing timely and appropriate responses at all stages of its process.