Haringey London Borough Council (202515257)

Background

1. The resident lives in supported accommodation for those with health vulnerabilities. Her home comprises a flat in a communal building. She raised concerns that the landlord was not effectively responding to her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

4. The landlord did not respond to reports of ASB in line with its policy and its communication was poor. It failed to provide proportionate redress and did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its responses.

Complaint handling

5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which it did not acknowledge, apologise, or offer redress for.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that she was unhappy with the response of individual staff members involved in handling her case. When investigating a complaint, we consider the response of the landlord as a whole. We will only comment on the actions of individuals as far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, our determination and any associated orders and recommendations are directed at the landlord rather than the individual. We will not order a landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.

What we did investigate

7. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. When this is the case, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to review the ASB) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
8. The landlord failed to contact the resident upon receiving her initial report of ASB in July 2024. This meant it did not implement the actions set out in its ASB policy. She subsequently contacted it a further 4 times between August and October 2024 to report further incidents and chase a response. There is no evidence that it responded to any of this contact, likely leaving her feeling frustrated and ignored.
9. In the resident’s correspondence to the landlord on 13 October 2024, she told it she was unhappy that it had failed to act on her reports of ASB. It responded the following day to advise it would be meeting with the alleged perpetrator (her neighbour), to discuss the issue that week. That said, it is not clear from the records if it opened an ASB case at this point which indicates a record keeping failure. There is also no evidence that it acted in line with its ASB policy to carry out a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident to manage her expectations. Given its knowledge of her vulnerabilities, it should have assessed any risk involved. This would ensure that its response to the matter was proportionate.
10. On 24 October 2024, the landlord provided an update to the resident. It confirmed that it had visited the neighbouring property on 22 October 2024 and found no evidence of ASB. It requested that she upload any supporting evidence to its ASB app and said it would continue to monitor the situation. It also queried whether her reports might relate to a different address, given the “unlikely” nature of them involving the identified neighbour.
11. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to review the evidence already submitted by the resident, including video footage, before raising this question. Given its delayed response and that she had expressed her frustration of its handling of the case up to this point, questioning the accuracy of her reports likely further damaged the relationship between the parties. In not demonstrating that it had considered previous evidence the resident had submitted, it missed an opportunity to reassure her that it was taking a proactive approach to address the issue.
12. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it asked the resident to use its ASB app to make any further reports. It apologised for its delay to respond to her initial report of ASB. However, it failed to offer redress in recognition of her time and trouble in chasing it for a response. It also failed to acknowledge that it had not followed its ASB policy in not conducting a risk assessment or action plan. Its response did not demonstrate any learning nor acknowledge that the resident’s vulnerabilities may have compounded the effects of its failings.
13. In the resident’s escalation request of the same day, she told the landlord she was unable to use its ASB app. She said she had previously asked it for support with this, but it had failed to respond. She told it issues were ongoing and made further reports of ASB on 19 and 30 December 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these reports at the time or contacted the resident to offer any support to access its ASB app.
14. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 17 January 2025, over a month after the resident reported further ASB. With no new reports logged, it is reasonable to assume this was in response to her reports made in December 2024. Its records do not show whether it contacted the resident or took action after the assessment. This again indicates poor record keeping and has meant we are unable to assess if its approach was proportionate in the circumstances.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response said its tenancy management team would be managing the resident’s ASB reports and it would arrange support for her to use its ASB app. However, it did not provide timescales, thus missing an opportunity to provide the resident with a measurable plan. It apologised for its delay to investigate her initial report of ASB and said it had identified this as a learning point. It offered £100 compensation for this failure.
16. While the landlord appropriately apologised and offered redress for its identified failing it did not acknowledge there had been multiple instances of it failing to adhere to its ASB policy. This meant its apology and compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays and inconvenience experienced by the resident and did not fully put things right for her. Therefore, with consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for it to apologise and pay increased compensation.

17. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. The landlord has adopted our definition of a complaint in its policy. On 13 October 2024, the resident said she was unhappy it had not addressed her ASB reports. It did not log a complaint until her further contact the following month, despite its policy requiring it to treat her dissatisfaction as a complaint on that date.
19. The landlord failed to record the dates it issued its complaint acknowledgements and extension requests to the resident which indicates a record keeping failure. Due to this we are unable to assess if it sent these within a reasonable timescale. Its acknowledgements incorrectly show the complaint and escalation dates as later than submitted by the resident making them inaccurate.
20. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed at both stages. It issued its stage 1 response 6 days later than the timescales set out in its policy. Its stage 2 response was issued 27 days later than its published timescales. It failed to acknowledge, apologise or offer redress for these delays in its complaint responses.
21. Considering the above failings, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made an order for it to apologise and pay compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

General learning

22. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event

Record Keeping

23. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

24. There were multiple delays in the landlord contacting the resident regarding her reports of ASB and her complaint. There was little evidence to show it kept her updated about its actions. It is important that the landlord effectively manages residents’ expectations about how it intends to respond to concerns and that they are kept informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.