Haringey London Borough Council (202227540)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227540

Haringey London Borough Council

23 May 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Reports of harassment by noise nuisance.
    3. Request to be rehoused.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy of the property, a 1 bedroom flat. The tenancy started in July 2014 and the resident told the landlord she had mental health conditions when signing the tenancy. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident was assaulted by her neighbour on 4 November 2021. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2022 as she was unhappy that no action had been taken by the landlord against the neighbour. She asked to be rehoused or for the neighbour to be evicted as she did not feel safe in the property. The landlord confirmed it was awaiting the outcome of the court hearing before taking any action against the neighbour. The neighbour was found guilty of assault on 28 June 2022. The landlord considered the resident’s rehousing request at its Housing Decisions Panel on 14 July 2022 and rejected the resident’s request on the basis that the neighbour was complying with her court order and there had been no further incidents.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 July 2022 and said the landlord had not done enough since the assault in November 2021. She wanted to be rehoused on the basis that the neighbour had breached the tenancy agreement. The landlord responded on 25 July 2022 and said it had taken steps to ensure action would be taken if another incident occurred and told the resident that her request to be rehoused had been rejected. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 13 August 2022 and asked the landlord to reconsider her application for rehousing. The resident also told the landlord that the situation had made her unwell and provided new medical evidence. In its stage 2 response of 12 October 2022 the landlord confirmed it would reconsider the resident’s request for rehousing given the new evidence received from her doctor.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the matter to this Service on 18 April 2023. In referring the matter, the resident said she felt ignored by the landlord and she did not feel safe at the property. She wanted to be rehoused out of the borough. The resident has informed this Service that she is continuing to experience harassment from the neighbour and is still seeking to be rehoused.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman 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 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. When referring the complaint to this Service, the resident has outlined her complaint to include harassment from the neighbour by means of noise nuisance. The resident said that the neighbour uses a power tool all hours of the day to intentionally disturb her. There is evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case following these reports. The evidence shows, and the resident confirmed to this Service, that the issue of noise started after the complaint was concluded in October 2022.
  4. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. The landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate this part of the complaint, therefore any issues raised by the resident regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and harassment are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.
  5. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident about the noise nuisance and clarify whether she wishes to raise a complaint about its handling of the reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in contact with this Service, the resident has said this situation has had an impact on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more suitable to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts and will not be assessed as part of this investigation.
  2. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and in accordance with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. In her initial complaint to the landlord on 4 July 2022, the resident said she felt the landlord had not done enough to manage the reported ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy says on receiving a report of ASB it will:
    1. Assess the risks to the victim, categorising reports as high or low level ASB.
    2. Agree an action plan with the victim.
    3. Investigate the ASB.
    4. Take action, such as mediation, warnings and legal action, to prevent further incidents.
  2. There is no evidence of the landlord opening an ASB case following the assault on the resident in November 2021 and no evidence of the landlord completing any of the steps outlined in its policy at the time of the incident. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 April 2022 about the lack of support she had received since the incident and in its response the following day, the landlord said it had considered the matter to be a dispute between neighbours rather than ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy clearly defines violence or threats of violence as ASB and so it is unclear how the landlord came to the decision not to treat the incident as ASB. It is unreasonable that it did not communicate this decision to the resident at the time and the landlord has acted inappropriately in not following its policy when the incident took place.
  3. On 21 April 2022 the landlord told the resident it was waiting on the outcome of the court hearing prior to taking any action against the neighbour. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will support other agencies in taking action where they have the prime responsibility and powers to do so. There is evidence of the landlord liaising with the police on the matter and it was appropriate for it to have done so when formal charges had been brought against the neighbour.
  4. On 21 June 2022 the landlord told the resident that while it awaited the court hearing, the information from the police did not indicate a current risk to the resident. However, the resident made the landlord aware she was still feeling unsafe in her home and there is no evidence of the landlord taking any interim steps available to it, such as issuing warning letters to the neighbour or offering support and regular communication to the resident. The policy states that the landlord’s priority will always be the wellbeing of the victim and it is evident in this case that the landlord failed to adhere to this.
  5. The tenancy agreement states that residents must not use assault and the landlord’s website says it will “act to evict anyone guilty of violence if they live in our property”. By suggesting it was necessary to wait for the outcome of the court hearing prior to taking action against the neighbour, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations with regards to what would happen following the hearing. In an email to the resident on 21 June 2022, the landlord said the neighbour was “innocent until proven guilty” and reiterated that it could not take any action until after the hearing.
  6. In the resident’s complaint of 4 July 2022 she said that she didn’t understand why action had still not been taken as the neighbour had been found guilty of assault on 28 June 2022 and therefore had breached the tenancy agreement. In its stage 1 response of 25 July 2022 the landlord said it had carried out its legal process to ensure that action would be taken if another incident took place. The landlord said that the neighbour had kept to their court order and there had been no further incidents since November 2021.
  7. It is reasonable to conclude that the news of no action being taken would have been distressing for the resident, who was under the impression that tenancy enforcement action would be taken if the neighbour was found guilty. There is no evidence of the landlord discussing the possible future outcomes prior to the hearing which may have managed the resident’s expectations.
  8. The landlord’s internal communication suggests that the landlord viewed the incident in November 2021 as minor. In describing the matter as a dispute between neighbours, it is evident the landlord’s attitude towards the incident has influenced the way it has handled it. There is no evidence of the landlord completing a risk assessment or similar methodology to reach such a conclusion. The landlord acted unreasonably in this regard as it was clear the incident had a serious impact on the resident.
  9. In its complaint responses, the landlord has failed to identify these failures and failed to make attempts to put things right. Its compensation policy outlines that it may offer compensation where the service has failed to meet the required standards and where the resident has suffered a degree of distress or inconvenience as a result of this. It is evident that the resident has experienced distress as a result of this and an order has been made in this regard.
  10. In conclusion to the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy by not treating the assault as ASB and by failing to take appropriate steps to manage the situation while it awaited the outcome of the court hearing. The landlord also failed to provide support to the resident, despite knowing she was feeling unsafe in the property, and this investigation has found maladministration in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

  1. The landlord’s Housing Decisions Panel (the panel) procedure states that the purpose of the panel is to consider requests for rehousing with additional priority and approve offers of housing in exceptional circumstances. It considers requests for management transfers as well as other referrals such as those made in relation to safeguarding an applicant’s welfare or safety.
  2. The resident made a request to the landlord to be rehoused on a number of occasions prior to making her complaint, including in emails on 29 April 2022, 26 May 2022 and 16 June 2022. The resident told the landlord she did not feel safe in her home and that it was having an impact on her wellbeing. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for rehousing directly and only responded to the overall complaint saying that it could not take action until after the court hearing. The landlord failed to refer, or consider referring, the resident under a safeguarding referral to the Housing Decisions Panel prior to receiving her complaint and the outcome of the hearing. If the landlord felt the resident did not meet the criteria for rehousing at that time then it should have explained this clearly to the resident.
  3. Following the court hearing of 28 June 2022 the landlord referred the resident to the panel. The panel met on 14 July 2022 and considered the resident’s case. In its stage 1 response of 25 July 2022 the landlord said the panel had rejected her application for rehousing as there had been no further incidents and the neighbour was abiding by the court order.
  4. The landlord’s Housing Decisions Panel procedure states that where an application is unsuccessful, the landlord will attempt to discuss the matter with the applicant in a face to face setting. There is no evidence of the landlord making attempts to discuss the matter face to face nor by telephone. The landlord failed to act in line with its policy in this regard and has acted inappropriately, especially given the sensitive nature of the resident’s reason for wanting to be rehoused.
  5. In the resident’s escalation request of 13 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord to clarify if the panel’s rejection only applied to management transfers and if she was still able to apply to bid for properties through the local authority. There is no evidence of the landlord answering this question in its stage 2 response of 12 October 2022 nor in any of its other communication with the resident. The landlord also failed to provide information on any other options available to the resident, for example mutual exchanges or applying to other local authorities outside of the area.
  6. In her escalation request, the resident asked the landlord to review its decision based on new evidence from her doctor and in its stage 2 response the landlord agreed to reconsider her case at the next panel meeting. It is noted that no evidence relating to the outcome of this appeal has been provided to this Service, however the resident has informed this Service that the landlord’s decision did not change.
  7. In conclusion to the rehousing matter, the landlord failed to acknowledge or consider the resident’s request for rehousing when she first made the request. It failed to appropriately communicate the decision to reject her application and failed to provide adequate information about her other options to seek alternative properties. In failing to identify these shortcomings, it has missed the opportunity to put them right and offer redress. As with the handling of the reports of ASB, it is evident the resident has experienced distress as a result of this situation and an order of compensation has been made in this regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. In its stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with its response she could escalate her complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. In doing so, the landlord referred the resident to the wrong Ombudsman and has breached paragraph 6 of the Code. There was no detriment to the resident’s access to this Service so overall we have found no maladministration in this regard but a recommendation has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £500, comprising:
      1. £350 for the distress incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in handling the reports of ASB.
      2. £150 for the distress incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in handling the request for rehousing.
    2. Issue a written confirmation to the resident explaining the outcome of the most recent Housing Decisions Panel where the resident’s application for rehousing was discussed alongside the medical evidence provided. If the case was not considered again at a panel meeting, then the landlord must confirm the reasons for this and outline the resident’s options for appeal.
    3. Contact the resident with regards to her options for rehousing and signpost to relevant support services. The landlord must confirm the outcome of this discussion in writing.

Recommendations

  1. Contact the resident with regards to the ongoing noise nuisance and confirm what action is currently being taken, including clarifying if the resident would like to open a complaint about the matter.
  2. The landlord should provide training to its complaint handling staff to ensure its complaint responses include the correct information regarding whether a complaint should be escalated to this Service or to other Ombudsman services.