London Borough of Enfield (202315690)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block. She raised concerns with the landlord about security following issues with non-residents accessing communal areas. She said the security of the property should be improved, including installing a key fob system on the communal entrance gate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request for the installation of a key fob system on the communal gate.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. no maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for the installation of a key fob system on the communal gate
   2. service failure in its response to the associated complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord responded clearly to the request for the installation of a fob and set out its reasons for declining this. It communicated well and offered reassurances about security at the property.
5. The landlord adhered to its timeframes for complaint responses but failed to respond clearly to concerns the resident raised about antisocial behaviour and its impact on her.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord generally communicated well throughout the complaint. It gave responses to the resident’s emails within a reasonable timeframe, though there were a few it was slow to acknowledge. It organised an in-person meeting with her to discuss the issues raised, which was positive.
7. The landlord gave a reasonable explanation of why it was refusing to install a key fob entry system on the communal gate. It showed it had considered the practicality of the work and the cost impact on residents, in line with its policy promise to provide value for money in its repairs and maintenance work. It could have considered providing evidence of a cost-effectiveness exercise to support its reasoning.
8. The landlord gave reassurance around the existing security measures at the property, which was appropriate. It offered to monitor any further instances of trespass and gave the resident the chance to provide evidence of access from non-residents so it could investigate further. This showed it was taking her concerns seriously as its complaints policy says it will.
9. The landlord could have shown greater empathy, knowing the resident’s safety concerns and that its decision would disappoint her. While it balanced business responsibilities with her wellbeing by offering to respond to antisocial behaviour reports, it could have taken more immediate steps—such as agreeing an initial action plan under its Housing Antisocial Behaviour Policy. However, this would not have changed the outcome, and its decision on the resident’s request for a fob was reasonable.

10. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
11. The resident sent multiple emails about non-residents accessing communal areas and the request for the landlord to install a key fob system on the communal entry gate. The landlord took the decision to investigate these issues as a complaint on 23 August 2023, when it sent her an acknowledgment email.
12. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 1 working day (23 August 2023 to 24 August 2023) which was compliant with the Code which allows 10 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 20 working days (17 October 2023 to 14 November 2023) which was compliant with the Code which allows 20 working days
13. The landlord failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. She repeatedly mentioned feeling unsafe in her home because of the threat of ongoing antisocial behaviour. While it was reasonable to explain in separate emails that it could not consider past issues, it failed to mention her ongoing concerns about feeling unsafe in either of its complaint responses. It should have shown it acknowledged her concerns and that it wanted to improve her feeling of safety as its Housing Antisocial Behaviour Policy says it will.
14. The resident faced distress and inconvenience as the landlord did not give a clear explanation of how it would support her to feel safer at home. Given her concerns about safety were the reason for requesting the installation of the key fob system, this was unreasonable. It did not show a consistent handling of the complaint as its Complaints Policy says it will. We have ordered compensation in light of the impact of this failing.

Learning

15. The landlord was clear in its response to the main issue raised. It could consider ways of offering reassurance around personal safety in situations where residents feel unsafe.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. There were no issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

17. The landlord communicated well overall, despite some emails being missed. It made efforts to follow up emails with calls or in-person meetings.