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

London Borough of Barnet (202228491)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228491

Barnet Homes

13 March 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment from her neighbours.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is managed and maintained by the landlord as an arm’s length organisation (ALMO) of the council. The property is an end of terrace house in which the resident lives with her four children.
  2. On 12 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and raised concerns about a neighbour’s behaviour. The resident was concerned about the neighbour appearing drunk, chain smoking and crying about the death of a dog in front of her children. The resident reported her neighbour encouraging their son to damage the fence so they could blame the damage on the resident and sticks being thrown to damage some flowers. The resident stated that the fence between the properties was down, and it was a hazard as it had long nails in it. She also expressed concerns about the neighbour’s fly tipping. The resident stated there was “a potential abuse of power” as she thought the neighbours were employed by the landlord and the local council and were using their employment to intimidate her.
  1. The resident did not get a reply to the email she sent the landlord on 12 April 2022. The resident sent further emails and called the landlord raising more concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour including rubbish in the back garden attracting rats, verbal abuse, cannabis being smoked outside her house by the neighbour’s son, and the fence between the two properties still being down. Dissatisfied with the lack of response and no written replies to her emails, the resident made a formal complaint on 27 September 2022.
  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord stated that the first recorded contact from the resident was 22 April 2022 and that it had spoken to the resident and neighbour about the issues that had been raised. It reported the next time the landlord had spoken with the resident she advised the drug issues were resolved and no longer a problem. The landlord referred to the resident contacting it on 31 May 2022, 14 June, and 21 June 2022. It advised that an ASB officer had contacted the resident. The landlord stated the resident had declined to speak with the ASB officer as somebody from the local council’s community safety team were dealing with her concerns.
  2. The landlord advised the issues the resident raised from 21 June 2022 were not ASB, therefore, the issues would not be dealt with in line with its ASB procedures. It advised counter-allegations about the resident’s behaviour had been made by the neighbours. The landlord stated it had visited the resident on 27 September 2022 during which no ASB incidents were raised by the resident. It advised the resident’s complaints in relation to her neighbour’s employment were being dealt with by the local council and confirmed none of the resident’s neighbours were employed by the landlord. The landlord advised the local council’s community safety team would reply to the resident’s community trigger request and that it was not able to provide any evidence of ASB to support the resident’s request.
  3. On 13 October 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response. The resident expressed concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour, including some very serious allegations, and that the landlord had not done anything to help. The resident raised concerns about the accuracy of the stage 1 complaint response. She advised her email of 22 April 2022 was not the first email she had sent to the landlord with her concerns. The resident stated the landlord did not visit her on 27 September 2022. The resident said she had received inconsistent information about who dealt with ASB and there had been no conversations about ASB with her housing officer. There had been no written replies to her emails and the resident had concerns about the competency of some of the landlord’s staff. The resident advised the landlord it could contact her by email if it wanted to discuss her behaviour and stated she had no history of ASB. The resident requested the ASB situation be resolved swiftly.
  4. The landlord provided its final response on 10 November 2022. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised that the resident had cause to complain. The landlord advised it had examined 91 emails from the resident and identified 15 had been sent to the landlord. It confirmed the resident had not received any emails from the landlord and it should have responded and clarified what the landlord could address and what were police or criminal matters. In response to the disputed visit, the landlord apologised if the visit was on a different date but stated its staff member does recall a visit. The landlord asked the resident to provide the names of other residents who were willing to speak about what they had witnessed, and it would contact them.
  5. It said the neighbour was not obliged to put up a boundary fence. It had offered to speak to the neighbour about the fence, but the resident had declined as she did not want to antagonise the neighbour. The landlord advised the resident could put up her own fence between her property and the neighbour. It said it would put up a fence on the other side of the resident’s property along the alleyway within the next four weeks. The landlord said it wanted to clarify its position on matters regarding fraud by local council employees, paedophilia and stalking, and drug use. The landlord confirmed the neighbours did not work for the landlord and it could not comment on issues being investigated by the local council’s corporate anti-fraud team. It stated paedophilia and stalking were very serious allegations and signposted the resident to the police. The landlord was aware the police had been dealing with cannabis misuse in the locality, but it was not aware of drug use being ongoing by the resident’s neighbour.
  6. It advised the photographic evidence the resident had provided did not constitute harassment and advised the resident against taking photos of her neighbour. The landlord said it wanted to be realistic as to what action it could take as a housing provider, and it could only take tenancy enforcement action if there is a police prosecution for criminal activity. The landlord also addressed some queries the resident had raised regarding compensation for missed appointments, boiler repairs and a tenancy agreement.
  7. The resident contacted this Service as she was not happy with the final response from the landlord. The resident stated the landlord had failed to follow its ASB policy and had not helped her with the issues she was experiencing with her neighbour. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said it would put up a fence along the alleyway within the next four weeks and it had not. The outcomes the resident wanted were the landlord to take the situation seriously and allocate a contact that would take on the case and help with her neighbour issues. The resident also wanted a new housing officer as she had lost trust in her current officer. The resident requested the fence to be put up as the landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response. Subsequently, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that the fence was completed in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the evidence submitted by both parties, there has been information about missed appointments, a boiler repair, the position of the neighbour’s CCTV cameras and further communications between the parties since the landlord’s final response. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme sets out that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. As such, this Service is unable to consider the missed appointments, the boiler repair, the position of the neighbour’s CCTV cameras and further communications between the parties since the landlord’s final response. This investigation focuses on the events between 12 April 2022 when the resident raised her complaint and 10 November 2022 when the landlord issued its final response.
  2. The resident has requested a new housing officer from the landlord as an outcome to her complaint. This is not an outcome this Service can offer. Therefore, this Service is unable to consider this request as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment from her neighbours.

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states the landlord uses three statutory definitions of ASB. These definitions are “acting in an antisocial manner that caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people not of the same household” from the Crime & Disorder Act 1998, “engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to persons engaged in lawful activities” from the Housing Act 1996 and “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises” from the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Policing Act 2014.
  2. In the landlord’s policy it states it “will investigate ASB reports as soon as possible, and will prioritise serious incidents. Following a report of ASB, an initial triage assessment, which includes an initial vulnerability assessment, will be completed”. The landlord also states, “we recognise the importance of effective communication and will ensure that regular updates are provided to persons reporting ASB, and a clear point of contact is provided”. The landlord’s policy also lists the use of diary sheets to gather evidence and mediation to help resolve issues.
  3. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 12 April 2022 regarding her concerns about ASB from her neighbours. However, the resident’s email was not forwarded to the correct department until 6 June 2022 which was 34 working days after it had been sent. This was an unreasonable delay and resulted in the resident having to repeatedly chase a response.
  4. The resident chased up a response from the landlord on 22 and 28 April 2022, 31 May 2022, and 14 June 2022. During this period, the resident had also sent other emails detailing further concerns with her neighbours and referencing ASB. The landlord spoke to the resident about the neighbour’s obligations regarding the fence but no written communication about ASB was received from the landlord. As a result of no written responses to her emails, the resident raised a formal complaint on 27 September 2022. It was inappropriate and unreasonable that the landlord did not provide a written response to the resident’s emails. The resident should not have felt she needed to raise a formal complaint to get listened to and to receive a written response from the landlord. By not providing a written response and not addressing the resident’s concerns early on, the landlord missed many opportunities to prevent the resident feeling distressed and frustrated. It also missed the opportunity to prevent the volume of communication it received from the resident increasing.
  5. In an email to the landlord on 22 April 2022, the resident advised she had reported her neighbour to the police for smoking drugs outside her property. This email contained the crime reference number and the resident asked if the landlord had an ASB officer she could speak to. The resident did not receive a reply to her email so rang the landlord on 14 June 2022 and asked again to speak to an ASB officer. An ASB officer did not contact the resident until 15 July 2022 which was 57 working days after the resident first requested to speak to an ASB officer. This was not an appropriate or reasonable length of time for the resident to wait given the nature of the allegations. The delay in being able to discuss this with the landlord caused the resident distress and frustration.
  6. There was no evidence of the “initial triage assessment” which includes an “initial vulnerability assessment” as stated in 6.4.1 of the landlord’s antisocial behaviour and hate crime policy when the resident first raised ASB concerns. Any form of assessment was only referenced in the stage 1 complaint response as occurring on 14 June 2022 when the resident chased up contact from an ASB officer, 40 working days after the resident made her first report of ASB concerns.
  7. The landlord did not ask the resident to complete “incident diaries” as referenced in 6.5.1 of its antisocial behaviour and hate crime policy which would have been reasonable to do. The resident was not offered “diary sheets” until after the internal complaints process was completed. It was only when the resident asked how she should record incidents of ASB after she had been told in the stage 2 complaint response that she could no longer photograph her neighbour that the landlord offered diary sheets. This was 151 working days after the resident first emailed the landlord with concerns of ASB. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s policy. The resident sent a large volume of emails, this could have been reduced if the resident had been given diary sheets in the early stages of her concerns. Providing the resident with diary sheets for completion would have been a reasonable response from the landlord, however, it did not do this.
  8. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not acknowledge it failed to provide any written response to the resident. This was unreasonable as it should have acknowledged and apologised that it had not provided any written responses and that it had not provided the expected level of customer service. This also would have been appropriate as during the stage 1 complaint investigation a member of the landlord’s staff stated “I am sorry I have not managed this complaint very well. I have visited and spoken to [her] when I should have written a response”.
  9. The stage 1 complaint response did not contain accurate information. It stated that the landlord’s first recorded contact from the resident was 22 April 2022 despite the resident stating in her complaint that she had emailed on 12 April 2022. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep robust records of communication with residents. If the landlord was unable to find the email the resident was referring to in her complaint it would have been appropriate and reasonable to have contacted the resident to ask for a copy of this communication to ensure the landlord could conduct a thorough investigation. However, the landlord did not do this which meant the investigation at stage 1 was not thorough and the response contained inaccurate information. This caused the resident frustration.
  10. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that some issues the resident had raised were “not ASB identifiable”. This was not clear language, and the landlord did not provide the resident with any direction on how she could get the matters resolved. The resident was not signposted appropriately. It would have been reasonable under the circumstances for the landlord to offer mediation to facilitate discussion between the neighbours. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to be resolution-focused and to prevent the issues escalating.
  11. Another opportunity to take a resolution-focused approach was missed during the stage 1 complaint investigation as a member of the landlord’s staff stated, “I think if [landlord] also just put up a fence between [house number] and [house number] this would ease tensions”. However, there was no evidence to show this remedy was explored any further. This would have been a reasonable remedy under the circumstances.
  12. The evidence showed the landlord did not take a customer-focused approach. It was evident that the landlord was frustrated at the volume of emails the resident sent on 28 October 2022. While 91 emails containing 62 email trails is a very large volume of communication, the resident only sent these emails because the landlord’s staff member who was investigating the stage 2 complaint requested these. In an email to the resident on 28 October 2022, the staff member stated:

“When we last spoke you advised me that you were going to send me a copy of all the emails where you have not received a response, so that I can examine this as part of my investigation for your stage 2 complaint. Have you been able to locate these as yet as I am keen to understand the series of events and whether we have responded accordingly?”.

Not all the emails sent were applicable for the landlord. However, if the landlord had replied to the resident in the early stages of her concerns there would not have been chase-up emails for the resident to forward. The volume of emails sent may also have been reduced if the resident’s reports had been appropriately managed and appropriately signposted. The landlord had several missed opportunities to manage the volume of communication it had received from the resident.

  1. The internal communication showed that the landlord’s opinion was being influenced by historical reports. Each report of potential ASB and each complaint should be investigated on its own merit and in isolation unless there is a clear link. The resident was not treated fairly in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of “Be fair” requires “A constructive approach that applies consistent principles to all complaints while ensuring each complaint is considered on the facts of the individual case. Treating each complaint justly and without favour or discrimination”. This was not evident from the landlord.
  2. The stage 2 complaint response was comprehensive, tried to manage the resident’s expectations and appropriately signposted the resident. However, it did highlight that the landlord’s record keeping could not provide clarity when the resident disputed a visit that was referenced in the landlord’s stage 1 response. The stage 2 complaint response stated, “If this visit was on a different date [she] apologises but she does recall a visit where this was discussed in September”. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep robust records of meetings with residents.
  3. There were unreasonable delays in implementing the remedies it offered which caused distress and frustration for the resident. As requested by the landlord in the stage 2 complaint response, on 10 November 2022 the resident provided names and addresses of neighbours that would be prepared to be witnesses. However, this information was not given to the relevant staff member until 7 February 2023 which was 60 working days after the resident provided the information. This delay was unreasonable and unfair. It delayed progressing the case and this length of time passing could have affected witnesses’ willingness to discuss the issues and their memories of the events.
  4. The resident also experienced delays in the fence being erected along the alleyway near her property. The stage 2 complaint response issued on 10 November 2022 stated, “for this to be actioned on their planned work schedule so this should be complete within the next four weeks”, however, the fence was not complete until October 2023. This was an unreasonable delay and inappropriate as the resident had repeatedly expressed that her and her children felt vulnerable that anyone could access their garden from the alleyway by the property. The landlord was aware the resident felt vulnerable as this was acknowledged in the stage 2 complaint response as it stated, “I hope this helps you feel more secure in your property”. The delay in erecting the fence also caused the resident inconvenience as she was unable to allow her dogs to go in the garden unaccompanied as the garden was not secure.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that not all the issues the resident raised may have been deemed ASB or harassment. In some instances, it was appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to other services. However, while there were limits on what assistance the landlord could provide, there were many actions it was able to do, but did not. The resident was affected by the landlord’s poor communication, poor record keeping, approach towards her and the lack of resolution and customer focus. The resident was not treated fairly. She experienced delays from the landlord in communication, appropriate and reasonable action being taken in line with the landlord’s policy and carrying out the remedies it offered.
  6. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and harassment from her neighbours, the landlord should award the resident £600 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and harassment from her neighbours.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600 in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and harassment from her neighbours.
  2. The landlord must contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report to show it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping practices regarding logging receipt of communication from residents and its phone calls and visits with residents. It should carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its approach towards residents who make complaints to ensure they are treated fairly, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  3. If the landlord has capacity to do so, it is recommended the landlord consider arranging a different point of contact for the resident.