Haringey London Borough Council (202313487)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313487

Haringey London Borough Council

14 February 2025

 

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:
    1. Window repairs.
    2. Anti-social behaviour reports.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 7 December 2015. The property in question is a 1-bedroom third floor flat.
  2. Landlord records show a history of anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports from the resident and others in the local area about one of their neighbours. This was for several years prior to the complaint. On 29 July 2022, a closure order was granted which prevented the neighbour from returning to their address. However, on 28 September 2022 this was successfully appealed and the neighbour returned.
  3. On 15 December 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about an incomplete window repair and further ASB and safety concerns following the neighbour’s return to the building. She advised that the neighbour had recently caused a fire that she had to report as he was not present at his property.
  4. On 3 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it failed to carry out follow on works to the window after a visit in September 2021. It said that an operative would attend on 1 February 2023 to do the outstanding works. In relation to the ASB concerns, the landlord said a new Housing Liaison Officer had contacted her in July 2022 and the resident was told how to raise any further ASB reports. It said that during that call, she was advised of the enforcement action being taken against her neighbour.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023. She said that the landlord had failed to respond to previous correspondence regarding the window seal repair and despite the delay, no form of compensation was offered. The resident reiterated her concerns about the neighbour returning and the affect this would have on her family. She questioned the value of continuing to report the ASB and said she would not feel safe to raise those reports.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 27 February 2023. It acknowledged the overall delay in the window repair but said the required repair had now been completed. The landlord detailed the enforcement action taken against the neighbour and provided a timeline of previous actions it had taken prior to this. The landlord advised it would be looking into further enforcement action and it asked that the resident continue to provide evidence it could use. The landlord assured the resident that her reports would be anonymous, unless it had her consent. It said it would carry out a new risk assessment and provide her with diary sheets to record any further instances of ASB.
  7. The landlord provided the diary sheets and completed a new risk assessment in March 2023. The resident maintained that she was not comfortable providing diary sheets. In July 2023, the resident brought the complaint to this Service for a review as she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.
  8. There have been further reports to the landlord in the time since the complaint. However, as of June 2024, the neighbour was still living at their property and no successful enforcement action had been taken.

Assessment and findings

Window Repairs

  1. The landlord’s records show that it initially attended the property on 29 September 2021. The works order requested an assessment of the windows in the property as they were causing “dampness/condensation problems”. The notes from the visit said the windows required updating and a contractor visit was requested.
  2. Given the description of the required works, the landlord’s repair policy would consider this a routine repair with a 28 day timeframe for completion. However, it took the landlord 491 days to complete the repair. This is a significant service failing as the time taken was unreasonable against the obligation set out in its repair policy. During this time, the resident was left to experience distress and inconvenience due to the presence of the damp and condensation and managing this to prevent issues such as mould growth.
  3. Within her complaint submission, the resident said that she took unpaid time off work to chase these works with the landlord. This Service has not had sight of any evidence of failed appointments, or correspondence about the window repairs between September 2021 and the complaint being raised in December 2022. However, the delay in the completion of the works is accepted by the landlord in its complaint response.
  4. Within its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the works and apologised for it. However, it made no offer of compensation for the failure. Its compensation policy says that this kind of delay can be compensated if the landlord is at fault. The landlord provided no explanation for the delay. Given it was at fault for the delay in completing the works, the landlord should have made a compensation offer in line with its policy.
  5. The compensation policy says that delayed priority C works, which would be a routine repair, will be compensated at £10, plus £2 per day for the first 3 weeks. Any additional time would then be compensated at £5 per week. As the repair took 70 weeks to complete, this would equate to a payment of £387.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the required works following its initial visit in September 2021. Given that it noted that the required works were causing damp or condensation, these should have been dealt with as a priority. It took the resident raising a complaint for the landlord to arrange the completion of these works over a year after they were identified as being required.
  7. Although the landlord completed the repair during the complaint period, it failed to provide any form of compensation for the delay despite the resident being eligible for a payment in line with its compensation policy. Having considered the service failings identified in this review, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

ASB reports

  1. In considering this element of the complaint, this Service will focus on the events of the period 6 months prior to the complaint being raised in December 2022. This is in line with the landlord’s complaint policy at the time. Also, the resident’s complaint was largely raised in light of the neighbour having recently returned to the building. However, we may reference events from prior to this period for context.
  2. Landlord records show that the resident reported ASB by her neighbour for many years. An ASB officer who was previously involved noted an investigation starting in 2019, based on reports from several neighbours. The records say that given the reports of drug dealing, threats of violence and intimidation, the landlord had to work alongside the police in taking enforcement action.
  3. The landlord received plenty of evidence from neighbours but the application for a closure order was delayed due to factors such as “COVID-19, police officers changing jobs, technical issues in the paperwork by the police and adjournments”. A closure order was eventually granted on 27 July 2022 for 3 months. However, it was appealed successfully by the neighbour on 28 September 2022 and the order was rescinded, allowing them to move back in.
  4. In the period prior to the resident raising the complaint, the landlord was in the process of taking enforcement action against the neighbour. This kind of action would have taken time. The landlord needed to gather evidence in the months prior to progressing to court proceedings. This action nevertheless demonstrates that the landlord sought to resolve the ASB reports it received from multiple sources.
  5. The records show that after the closure order was granted, the landlord began the process of taking further enforcement action to remove the neighbour from the property. However, after the closure order was rescinded, this meant that it could not progress with these additional enforcement steps.
  6. It is understandable that the resident was disappointed that the closure order was eventually rescinded and the neighbour moved back in. Nevertheless, it is clear that the landlord tookreasonable steps to try and remove the neighbour from the property through the use of enforcement action.
  7. Following the appeal of the closure order, the landlord was required to reconsider next steps with the enforcement process. This required it to try to obtain new evidence of ASB to progress further enforcement action. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request further reports and evidence from the resident, including through its stage 2 complaint response. It appropriately provided her with diary sheets for the collection of such evidence and sought to reassure her on confidentiality.
  8. Ultimately, it is understandable that the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the action taken against her neighbour. It is clear that the residents, landlord and police considered that there had been significant enough ASB to seek removal of the neighbour from their property and appropriately progressed this action.
  9. However, from September 2022 (when the neighbour successfully appealed the closure order), the landlord demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to try and address the ongoing ASB. It offered to gather evidence from her, reassured her on how it would deal with this evidence and offered to do a new risk assessment. Having considered the landlord’s actions, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it acted reasonably and there was no maladministration in its handling of the ASB reports.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £387 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the window repairs.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.