London Borough of Enfield (202230676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230676

Enfield Council

6 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with the lease beginning April 2004. The property is a 1-bedroom flat located on the 9th floor.
There is a history of reports of ASB dating back to August 2021. The resident had made complaints in relation to two neighbours living in the block of flats she occupies, with the incidents reported being similar in nature. The neighbours will be referred to as “neighbour A” and “neighbour B” for the purpose of this report.
It has been accepted that both neighbours have vulnerabilities in relation to mental health issues. No further details were provided to this service.
This service notes that the landlord sent a draft copy of its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy dated October 2023, however, given that the events outlined in this report occurred prior to this, the previous policy has been referred to.
Throughout this report reference has been made to CMARAC which is a community multi-agency risk assessment conference.

Summary of events

On 4 November 2021 the resident reported that neighbour A had been smashing windows throughout the block. The case was allocated to the ASB team on 9 November 2021.
On 16 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the windows in the block had been smashed. She said, “please someone needs to do something”.
An internal e-mail was sent on 19 November 2021 saying “please advise if you are responding to the tenant’s complaint originally passed to you on 12 November 2021. The resident is experiencing anxiety.”
Diary entries produced by the resident between 21 and 22 November 2021 recorded noise from:
1. Shouting and screaming
2. Smashing the communal windows in the hallway
3. Aggressive behaviour
4. It also said she felt scared, stressed and it was preventing her from sleeping.
On 24 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident explaining it would be liaising with the housing department and the police. It went on to say it would be conducting a joint visit to the neighbour and serving them with a warning letter. An internal email sent the same day said the member of staff was “really concerned”.
On 29 November 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the antisocial behaviour continued in the block. She said that the communal glass had again been broken by neighbour A and he was screaming very aggressively. The landlord responded the following day saying that it had been in contact with the neighbour’s support workers.
On 6 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that “every night” neighbour B was screaming and crying, in addition to hitting the floor with a stick. She said the situation was not fair and she could not rest in her home.
The landlord responded the following day asking the resident to keep a log of incidents and for the resident to update the landlord every 2 weeks. It went on to say it would “make some enquiries with other services and the police”. There is no evidence to suggest this happened.
Between September and October 2022, the resident continued to make reports of ASB in relation to both neighbours.
On 5 December 2022 the resident reported that neighbour B had been acting in an aggressive and violent way, hitting the communal windows and that she found this very scary. She went on to say thatshe called the police and left the building out of fear. She said this was affecting her mentally and yet another weekend away from her house. The resident had copied in the area MP to her email.
The landlord responded the same day saying that it had alerted the support teams for the neighbour and that her reports were important to assist with this. It apologised for the length of time it was taking however it was not able to disclose the exact details of the case but advised that relevant procedures were being followed by the neighbour’s support team. It said it had escalated her concerns to senior management and any further incidents she should call the police.
The resident continued to report issues of ASB between January and February 2023 from both neighbours.
On 27 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord saying that her previous 5 emails had been ignored and no one was doing anything about the issues.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord responded to the resident thanking her for the inclusions of diary sheets. It went on to say it needed more recent events to be included and could the resident consider completing a diary over the next two weeks.
Internal emails sent the same day said that:
1. It appeared the issues had not been referred to CMARAC, but it was “likely” a referral would need to be made due to ongoing issues.
2. The resident advised she felt threatened and referenced the perpetrator and said he would burn the building and that was probably why she was electing to stay in a hotel.
3. It needed to write to residents on all floor levels that could be affected, that being floors 8,9,10 and 11.
4. It also needed to carry out a door knocking exercise, or else “we could be considered to have done very little”.
On 3 March 2023 the resident reported that:
1. Neighbour B had been crying and screaming the entire night.
2. He began banging the wall aggressively at 6am that morning.
3. He had said he was going to “burn down the building”.
4. She wanted to know why nothing had been done for the past two years to resolve the problem. The situation was affecting her mentally and was “killing” her.
5. She asked for help and for something to be done as soon as possible.
The landlord spoke to the resident the same day asking for her consent to refer the matter to CMARAC. The case notes say consent was given.
On 6 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord saying that:
1. She needed a solution to the ASB.
2. It was not fair that she had had to sleep elsewhere.
3. She had been reporting the issue since 2021 and it was affecting her daily life to the point that she could not go to work.
4. She had experienced anxiety for almost two years, and it was making her life miserable.
5. If a solution was not found, she would write to the newspaper.
6. It was not fair to ignore her case and she was asking for help one more time.
The same day an internal email evidenced that the landlord was liaising with the NHS Trust in relation to neighbour B and requested to carry out a joint visit to him. In addition, a CMARAC referral was made.
An internal email of 8 March 2023 said that a referral had been made to CMARAC, but the case would not be heard until April.
The resident sent further emails on 8, 10 and 14 March 2023 requesting “answers and a solution” and that her emails not be ignored.
This Service contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 explaining that the resident said she had complained to the landlord but had not yet received a response, therefore it should respond to the resident formally at the appropriate stage of its complaint process.
The same day the landlord contacted the resident. It said that:
1. It was very sorry to hear of the problems the resident was experiencing and felt it necessary to stay away from her home.
2. It assured the resident that it was liaising with the ASB team and other services in respect of the neighbours. It went on to say a referral had been made to the community multi agency risk assessment conference which was a multi-agency meeting attended by a number of core members including the ASB team, police, safeguarding adults’ team, and mental health services.
3. It reiterated its offer to refer the resident to a locks and bolts service for additional locks to her home and victim support.
4. As the case officer was on leave the case had been allocated to the manager who would be working jointly with the ASB team.
5. It urged the resident to continue to report any incidents to the police and update it on any incidents providing the date, time, and details of the incidents.
An internal email of 16 March 2023 evidenced the landlord liaised with the police. It requested police assistance and asked that they “pay attention to this particular address when on patrols” and that it may need to arrange a joint visit with them.
On 17 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint which was received via this service on 16 March 2023. It said her complaint was in relation to the ASB she was experiencing from two of her neighbours since 2021.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord hand delivered a letter to the block in relation to ongoing antisocial behaviour. It said it was doing its best to resolve the problems and would involve the police in its investigations. In addition, it requested residents report any incidents to the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one on 18 April 2023. It said that:
1. A neighbour was willing to provide a witness statement confirming who had had broken windows to the communal doors.
2. It had put together an action plan it was working on with the ASB team and the police.
3. It had sent emails to the mental health team on 6 and 16 March 2023, however had received no response.
4. it was going to carry out a multi-agency risk assessment conference on 20 April 2023.
5. It had completed a door knocking exercise to neighbours in the block to obtain information in relation to any ongoing incidents.
6. It would be carrying out a review of the case to see if there are any other actions that needed to be taken. In order to do this, it would be liaising with housing and ASB.
7. It would chase the mental health team to ensure a multi-agency approach.
8. It would explore care plans for the alleged perpetrator and work with the mental health team to establish if general needs were best placed to house them. It confirmed it would not be able to share any information regarding this due to private and personal information.
On 4 May 2023 the resident requested to raise her complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded the same day requesting the resident set out her reasons why.
On 22 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord saying she had been complaining about the neighbour, “who has mental health problems” for three years. She reported he had broken the pest netting on the balcony and was trying to jump through a hole he made in it.
On 30 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord saying that the neighbour had once again been crying and screaming all night. She said that he was hitting the wall very aggressively and saying he was going to set the building on fire. She said that she was living in fear in her own house and the landlord was doing nothing. She went on to say it was affecting her more and more and had anxiety and fear every time she was at home.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord responded to the resident saying that it had contacted the neighbour’s support team and alerted them of the concerns raised by her. In addition, it had made a referral to the assessment team in relation to the other neighbour. It went on to say that although it may not feel like the reports were being listened to it assured the resident that it was. It went on to explain the situation was complex an involved many other agencies working together and following procedures. It continued to encourage the resident to report any further issues.
On 2 June 2023, the landlord sent its final response, saying that an action plan had been set out which involved ongoing work with the police, housing ASB team and mental health services. It continued to say it had observed all statutory requirements and would be continuing to work with all services involved. However, it could not share detailed information about another individual’s private and personal information.
1. It went on to say that it had reviewed to the stage one response and confirmed that all its policies relevant to the issue had been followed. In addition, it had handled the first stage of the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and procedure.
2. It said that althoughit understood the resident’s frustrationit confirmed the first stage response had been upheld.
On 22 June 2023 a management case review was undertaken. The notes said that:
1. The case was being discussed at CMARAC and witness statements from complainants was to be obtained.
2. It would need to take tenancy action due to the escalation of issues.
3. It would issue a warning letter if one hadn’t been issued.
4. It would contact legal services to ask if it could “go straight to a notice of seek possession” being served due to the ongoing reports.
5. It would contact all the complainants on the case and offer “locks and bolts to the main complainants” including a fireproof letter box.
6. It would set up a professionals meeting.
7. It would contact the police to find out what actions were being taken.
The resident continued to report ASB from the neighbours.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord sent a warning letter to neighbour B warning him his behaviour may constitute breaches of the tenancy agreement. It went on to say that if it continued to receive reports about his behaviour it would take legal action.
An email of 12 July 2023 evidenced that a multi-agency meeting was carried out on 11 July 2023. The contents of the email were redacted.
The resident advised this service that she moved out of the property due to the noise she was experiencing. Furthermore, she said she tried to let the property in August 2023, however the tenants vacated 1 month later due to the ASB issues.

Assessment and findings

This Service acknowledges that this is a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to the landlord have caused her significant distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s Anti-social behaviour policy (ASB) says that it has 3 categories of prioritisation for cases:
1. Priority 1, to be responded to within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. Examples of priority 1 cases are:
  1. Actual or serious threat of violence
  2. Physical violence/serious threat of violence
  3. Serious damage to property
  4. Vulnerable adult crime.
2. Priority 2, to be responded to within 5 working days of receiving a complaint. Examples of priority 2 cases are:
  1. One off aggressive behaviour
  2. Deliberate damage to property
  3. Statutory noise nuisance.
3. Priority 3 to be responded to within 10 working days of receiving a complaint. Examples of priority 3 cases are:
  1. Pet nuisance
  2. General noise
  3. Fly tipping.
The policy outlines what it will do as part of its investigation. For example:
1. Investigate cases, establish the seriousness of a complaint, and take appropriate and relevant measures.
2. Work with the Police and other partners to prevent and deter re-offending by perpetrators.
3. Work in partnership with other agencies where residents instigate the Community Trigger or the Community Remedy.
4. Use a range of methods including (but not exhaustive): warning letters, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Good Neighbour Agreements, Injunction, and possession proceedings. Legal remedies include the Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA), the Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO).
5. Ensure its response to anti-social behaviour is appropriate and proportionate depending on the facts of each individual case.
Section 11 of the leaseholder handbook relates to ASB and echoes what is outlined in its ASB policy. In addition, it says that:
1. It will arrange to interview the resident as soon as possible.
2. Agree an action plan with residents for gathering evidence and stay in contact throughout its investigation.
3. Once the investigation has been completed, the Anti-Social Behaviour Officer will discuss the outcome with their manager.
4. Agree with the resident any action proposed.
It has been evidenced that the resident has been complaining about ASB from her neighbours since August 2021.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 9 November 2021 following reports from the resident that a neighbour had been smashing windows throughout the block. This was appropriate.
The resident continued to make reports regarding antisocial behaviour, which included screaming and shouting, behaving aggressively, smashing the communal windows which the resident said made her feel scared, stressed and was preventing her from sleeping.
Despite this there was no evidence to suggest the landlord acted within its policy by assessing the seriousness of the complaint or rating the complaint in accordance with its priority categories. This was not appropriate.
Government guidance on “putting victims first” helps agencies identify and support high risk victims by providing tools to deal with anti-social individuals. In accordance with this guidance it is best practice to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm. In this case, the landlord has failed to provide evidence of a risk assessment having been carried out, which is not appropriate.
This Service would expect the landlord to take a victim centred approach by assessing the level of risk when the resident initially reported the ASB. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to complete ongoing risk assessments particularly given the continued serious nature of her reports. This would have provided the landlord with the opportunity to assess any potential harm arising from the resident’s raised ASB concerns. Further, it would have also allowed the landlord to consider what support the resident required.
On 24 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident explaining it would be liaising with the housing department and contacting the police. In addition, it would be conducting a joint visit to the neighbour and serving them with a warning letter. An internal email sent the same day noted the officer was “really concerned”. There is no evidence to demonstrate a warning letter was sent around this time. Furthermore, no evidence to demonstrate a joint visit was carried out to the neighbour. This is not appropriate, especially given the concern highlighted.
The resident made reports in April 2022 and between September and October 2022 of ASB in relation to both neighbours.
On 5 December 2022 the resident reported that neighbour B was acting in an aggressive and violent way hitting communal windows. She copied in the area MP. The landlord responded the same day saying it would escalate her concerns to senior management. It was appropriate that the landlord responded promptly and by advising it would be escalating her consent to senior management, demonstrating it was taking the complaint seriously.
Internal emails sent 28 February 2023 acknowledged that no CMARAC referral had been made following the resident’s initial reports in 2021. This was not appropriate, especially considering the length of time the resident had been reporting serious ASB.
In addition, the emails highlighted the need to write to other residents that may be affected by the ASB and to carry out a door knocking exercise. Whilst these were appropriate actions to take, it was not appropriate that these actions were not taken sooner. Furthermore, it is concerning that the landlord suggested the door knocking exercise, following its own concerns that “it could be considered to have done very little”.
From March 2023 onwards the landlord was proactive in its approach to resolving the matter and has evidenced that it had liaised with the police and NHS services. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
On 22 June 2023 a management case review was undertaken. It outlined a number of actions to be taken in trying to resolve the situation. The actions identified by the management review were appropriate, nevertheless it was not appropriate that a management review had not been carried out sooner given the length of time the resident had been reporting. The delay in carrying out such a review, may have delayed the situation being resolved sooner and prolonging the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
A warning letter was sent to neighbour B on 6 July 2023. This was 15 months after the resident’s initial report of 6 April 2022 and was not appropriate.
An email of 12 July 2023 evidences that a multi-agency meeting was carried out on 11 July 2023. The contents of the email were redacted therefore this service cannot comment any further. Nevertheless, it was not appropriate that this meeting was not held sooner, especially considering the seriousness of what was being complained about and the length of time the matter had been going on for.
It is clear that the situation would have been challenging and required the landlord to approach the matter sensitively, given the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. This service acknowledges that the situation is complex for the landlord and involves the conflicting priorities of the resident and the vulnerable neighbour, which is challenging to manage fairly for all parties. Nevertheless, given the known impact on the resident it should have acted much sooner.
In summary, the landlord was aware of the lack of action it took when trying to resolve the resident’s complaint. The lack of action prolonged the length of time the resident was experiencing the ASB. The resident advised the landlord numerous times that she was scared, stressed and stayed in a hotel several times, finally moving out of the property. Despite this the landlord has not evidenced any meaningful action it took until March 2023 which was over 18 months after the initial complaint. In addition, it failed to complete a risk assessment, which is the foundation of a victim centred approach and by not doing so it has failed to properly understand and assess the impact on the resident.
When ordering compensation, we take into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as any other relevant factors. The amount of compensation that we decide does not reflect a definitive loss, as we are not able to quantify this, but it is a recognition of the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant by the particular circumstances of the complaint.
The resident had explained many times that she was scared, stressed and anxious. Furthermore that the situation was affecting her mentally and she could not rest in her home and had to stay elsewhere. This had a considerable impact on her enjoyment of her property.
Therefore, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident between August 2021 and July 2023 following the landlord’s failures in its response to her reports of anti-social behaviour, £2400 compensation has been awarded. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been a long term impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s corporate complaint policy says that:
1. A complaint is any expression of dissatisfaction about a service that is being delivered or the failure to deliver a service, which requires a response.
2. Complaints can be made through a Councillor or Member of Parliament.
3. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, extended to 20 working days if the matter is complex.
4. A stage 2 or the final review stage will be responded to by a senior manager within 30 working days of acknowledgement.
The resident had been reporting ASB from the neighbours since August 2021. On 5 December 2022 she contacted the landlord reporting that neighbour be had been acting in an aggressive and violent way and copied in the area MP to this report, highlighting the seriousness of the situation. The landlord responded the same day and said it would escalate her concerns to senior management, which was appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 March 2023 asking, “why nothing had been done for the past two years to resolve the problem” and the situation was affecting her mentally and was “killing” her. The landlord failed to recognise the need to raise a formal complaint. Although the resident did not specify she wanted to raise a formal complaint, the language used in her email was clear that she was expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s ASB handling. This was not appropriate and a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint, prolonging matters for her.
This service raised a stage one complaint on behalf of the resident on 14 March 2023. The landlord formally responded on 18 April 2023; this was 21 working days later. This was appropriate because the landlord had liaised with the resident in between this time and its complaints policy says response timescales can be extended to 20 working days if the matter is complex. It advised the resident of its action plan and the action it had taken. Despite its lack of meaningful action at the initial stages of the case, this demonstrated that the landlord was taking the complaint seriously.
The resident requested to raise her complaint to stage 2 on 4 May 2023. The landlord responded the same day asking the resident to outline her reasons why. On 22 May 2023 the resident responded saying she had been complaining for 3 years about her neighbour who had mental health problems. She reported that neighbour B had damaged pest netting and was trying to jump through it.
The landlord sent its final response on 2 June 2023, it said it had observed all statutory requirements and would be continuing to work with all services involved. However, it could not share information about another individual’s private and personal information. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to withhold personal information, the final response was brief. The complaint handling code says landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Although it said it had observed all statutory requirements, it failed to reference any of them as per the complaint handling code or acknowledge its earlier delays and failure to take action.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles state ‘be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord had acknowledged internally that it could be considered to have “done very little”, however, it failed to acknowledge this in its final response and apologise. The complaint handling code says landlords should recognise that putting things right is the first step to repairing and rebuilding the landlord and resident relationship. It did not offer the resident any compensation to help put things right. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience when pursuing her complaint, and this was frustrating for her.
In summary the landlord failed twice to recognise the need to raise a formal complaint and in doing so, it delayed providing the resident with a resolution for 4 months. Following contact from this service it wrote to the resident at stage 1 providing details of its action plan which was a positive step to putting things right. However, despite being aware of its lack of action, its final response failed to acknowledge its failings or offer the resident any compensation to put things right. Therefore, as evidenced above there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling, and £300 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident and is an appropriate step to remedy the failure and put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in regard to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was not proactive in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB and failed to carry out a risk assessment. It lacked a victim centred approach. The landlord did not demonstrate it acted within its policy by assessing the seriousness of the issues or rating them in accordance with its priority categories, especially given the serious nature of what was being reported.
The landlord failed to recognise the need to raise a stage 1 complaint and by doing so did not follow its complaints procedure and delayed a resolution. In addition, the final response failed to acknowledge its failings and award compensation in order to put things right.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report in relation to its response to her ASB reports and its complaint handling.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £2700 made up of:
  1. £2400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB.
  2. £300 compensation in recognition for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
This service is aware the landlord is in the process of implementing a revised ASB policy, which includes carrying out a risk assessment. The landlord is to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy and procedure, in order to ensure that the above failings do not happen again. In particular, to highlight the need to categorise seriousness of ASB reports and take timely action based on that assessment. Furthermore, take a victim centred approach, and ensure risk assessments are completed, monitored and updated regularly.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that they respond to complaints in accordance with best practice.