Haringey London Borough Council (202120142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120142

Haringey London Borough Council

24 October 2023

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:
   1. Antisocial behaviour.
   2. Noise from the neighbour’s toilet.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

3. The leaseholder is a resident of the landlord, a local authority. The leaseholders occupancy commenced on 19 September 2007 and he sold the property on 21 September 2022.  The property is a one bedroom flat on the fifth floor.
4. On 2 January 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour. Reports were made about the neighbour ‘cursing’ and ‘shouting’ throughout the night and early mornings. He later said he was unhappy with the numerous calls that were not returned and the fake promises. The resident also complained about a noise nuisance from a separate neighbour’s toilet.
5. Issues concerning the delays in refunding service charge were also discussed during the internal complaints procedure.

Antisocial Behaviour

6. The earliest reports of ASB we have seen date back to 2018. However, on 19 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about the ASB he was experiencing and explained this has been ongoing for over 5 years. He explained that, despite numerous residents complaining, the issue remained. The resident explained he was trying to sell his lease and had an offer withdrawn because of this matter and wanted to know who would compensate him for that. He expressed concern about selling the property without disclosing the real facts of ASB to the potential buyer.
7. The following day, the landlord responded to the resident and explained the neighbour was well known to them and has a support network that was supporting her with medication. It explained it had raised the issues with her support network and asked them to review her current circumstances urgently. However the landlord explained it needed to rely on her support network to help resolve the matter.
8. The resident further complained on 28 September 2021 about the neighbour’s behaviour and explained she was shouting and swearing in the late evening. He asked if there were any updates with regards to the case. The landlord reiterated it would engage with her support network.
9. Throughout September and October 2021 there were numerous conversations between the landlord and resident who had informed the landlord of the continued ASB experienced and how this was impacting on him. The landlord also visited the neighbour to discuss her behaviour.
10. During November 2021, the landlord explained to the resident that it had arranged for the neighbour to attend meetings in an effort to reduce and eliminate the ASB. Throughout November the resident chased a resolution and said he was unhappy the landlord was ‘by-passing’ his complaint, and that he was not happy with the steps it was taking to resolve the issue.
11. During December 2021 the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service to escalate his complaint. He had taken the following actions:
    1. Numerous calls and emails to the landlord, which were followed by ‘fake promises’.
    2. Contacted Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, however it was unable to consider the matter.
    3. Contacted Citizen Advice, however they were unable to help.
    4. Contacted Leasehold Advice for help.
    5. Made a community trigger referral, but he had never heard back about this.
    6. He contacted 3 local MPs.
12. As the case had not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, this was referred back to it. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 21 January 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident was experiencing and the delay in responding to the issue. It explained it was working with the vulnerable resident’s support network to ensure the neighbour received the support required. It explained it was also looking for housing options but was unable to confirm whether the neighbour would be moved. With regards to the resident wanting the landlord to buy back his lease, it explained that as the lease was purchased more than 10 years ago, the landlord had the right to refuse this request. It explained it had no plans to purchase one-bedroom properties currently.
13. During February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the response and that the ongoing ASB was happening over an extended period of time. The resident did not feel the issues were being resolved and wanted the landlord to consider buying his lease so he could move.
14. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 7 April 2022, it acknowledged it had received a number of reports from the resident about his neighbour’s behaviour.  Following its update to the resident on 28 February 2022, which explained it would work with the neighbour’s support network, it explained a decision had been made to move the neighbour. The landlord apologised for the length of time the resident had to endure the ASB, but explained in such circumstances it can take some time to resolve. In the meantime it agreed to update the resident and asked him to report any nuisance should it occur. With regards to the resident wanting the landlord to buy back his lease, it explained that it would not be able to agree to this, and this would not be a matter which it could alter via the complaints process.

Noise nuisance

15. The resident contacted the landlord about his neighbour’s toilet making noise every time it was flushed. He explained this issue had only occurred after the neighbour carried out internal works.
16. The landlord’s stage one complaint response dated 21 January 2022 stated it had contacted its major works team to confirm if any major works had been done at the building however it confirmed this was not the case. The repairs team was unaware of the noise issue being reported by the resident. The landlord explained there was no breach of lease by the neighbour in installing a new toilet despite the increased noise. The landlord stated if the noise was due to the pipes in the building this would be a matter for its repairs team to investigate, therefore it would arrange for is repairs team to look at the noise and pipework.
17. The resident responded to the stage one reply, stating that it was not satisfactory. He said he had spoken to the landlord the previous week and explained the issue was not in regards to major works or a pipework issue, but that his neighbour refurbished the flat which resulted in this noise being experienced.
18. During February 2022, the resident further contacted the landlord to raise concerns. He was unhappy that he was having to endure the noise from the toilet for over six months The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 March 2022 stating that his complaint was upheld until the noise of the toilet issue was fully resolved. This letter did not go into detail, but went on to explain the resident could escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure.
19. During March and April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to discuss the issue, and it sent a stage two response on 7 April 2022. In regard to the noise from his neighbour’s toilet, it explained that, despite stating in the stage one response this matter would be investigated, this was not actioned. The landlord apologised for this and said it had since spoken with the neighbour and suggested he put a casing around the tank in an attempt to eliminate the noise. Should this not work, it would review the issue further to see what could be done. The landlord did however explain that the cause of the noise had not been determined to be its doing, and, in the event that private works resulted in the problem, it would be the leaseholders’ responsibility to rectify the matter.  In recognition of the overall delay in following up the noise reports in January, the landlord awarded £40 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

20. The Ombudsman recognises that the concerns the resident reported have caused significant distress to him. We understand the resident said that the ASB had been ongoing for numerous years and the landlord was made aware of the issue by multiple residents. Whilst we have noted this as context, the scope of this investigation considers the recent incidents considered in the landlord’s formal responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
21. A landlord has two main duties when antisocial behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the antisocial behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home, and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
22. We recognise that, in this complaint, the perpetrator is a vulnerable resident and the landlord and other residents are aware of this. It is important to note that, when dealing with vulnerable residents, how a landlord deals with issues concerning that resident may vary from their standard ASB policy. However, and with that in mind, we do expect landlords to take appropriate actions to help resolve the ASB to the best of their ability.
23. The evidence shows the landlord took the following steps to resolve the issues:
    1. Wrote to the neighbour to discuss the complaints of ASB.
    2. Visited the neighbour.
    3. Contacted the neighbour’s support network.
    4. Arranged meetings for the neighbour to attend.
    5. Found alternative accommodation for the neighbour.
24. The Ombudsman considers that the actions the landlord were proportionate and within a reasonable timeframe. Considering the neighbour’s vulnerabilities, it was important that the landlord explore all avenues to resolve the matter as opposed to eviction. Evictions should only be considered if no other options are available and would ultimately be a decision for the courts. Whilst we recognise it took some time before the neighbour was offered alternative accommodation, the evidence shows that throughout 2022 the landlord was consistently communicating with the relevant parties in an effort to resolve the ASB.
25. We understand the resident has since moved home, however prior to moving he asked the landlord to purchase his lease. The landlord had explained to the resident it was unable to purchase the lease from him as it was not looking to buy one-bedroom properties. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request and explained its position to him clearly. The landlord had no obligation to buy back the lease in this case.

The resident’s reports of noise from the neighbours toilet

26. Section 2 of the resident’s lease agreement set out the landlord’s obligations, including that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, pipes and dwelling.
27. At the point when the resident reported noise coming from the neighbour’s toilet, the cause had yet to be determined. Whilst we acknowledge the resident claims the noise was due to his neighbour carrying out refurbishments in March 2021, it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate this to ensure that the noise was not caused by something covered under its obligations, such as the pipework. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to state that if the noise was caused by something the neighbour did it would not be responsible.
28. The evidence shows in January 2022, the landlord informed the resident it would send its repairs team to investigate the noise. However three months later in April this had still not been actioned. The landlord’s repairs handbook states, ‘repairs for other service have different time scales’. Whilst we note there is no specific timeframe to attend to an issue of this nature, the length of time taken for the landlord to investigate the matter was unreasonable. During the period in which the resident was waiting for an investigation, or in its stage one complaint response, it would have been best practice for the landlord to communicate timescales to the resident. Nonetheless it apologised to the resident and offered him £40 compensation to reflect the delay. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its compensation policy, as this delay caused inconvenience and upset to the resident. We find the apology and the compensation offered at the time constitutes reasonable redress.
29. The evidence shows the landlord wrote to the neighbour in regards to the reports received within a reasonable timeframe.
30. The evidence also shows the landlord arranged to have a repairs team investigate the matter and checked its systems to see if any major works had been completed. On concluding that this noise was not an issue with the pipework, or present prior to the refurbishment, the landlord wrote to the neighbour a number of times about unauthorised alteration to the flat, however on some occasions it did not receive a response. The landlord proceeded to contact the neighbour on several occasions about unauthorised alterations causing a nuisance to the resident and following a surveyor’s visit to inspect the neighbours property, it was able to confirm no wall cavities were removed, however it was noted that the bathroom had recently been redecorated. The report stated there was no demolition works or structural alterations but new plumbing and fitting services were carried out to the bathroom layout.
31. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the actions taken by the landlord were appropriate. Whilst we understand the resident’s frustration with the noise, it is important to note the landlord investigated the concerns and checked if works had been completed by the neighbour. We have not seen evidence to suggest that the noise constituted a statutory nuisance, however understand how frustrating this would have been to the resident. We find the landlord’s actions to compensate the resident for the delays into investigation to be reasonable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

32. Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to residents’ complaints. It explains that a two-stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages and provided the resident with two formal responses.
33. The landlord’s complaints policy states it aims to provide a full response within 10 working days. In the event this is not possible, it will contact the resident and aim to provide a response within further 10 working days.
34. In this instance, the resident was complaining to the landlord about the issues for a while. As a result of the landlord not progressing the complaint he contacted our service, and we contacted the landlord on his behalf. The evidence shows that despite the resident complaining for a while the landlord did not issue a stage one response until 21 January 2022.
35. Whilst we recognise the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, we are not satisfied this response reflected the distress and inconvenience caused by the resident having to chase and go through other means, including contacting this service, to have his complaint acknowledged. It is important the landlord registers residents’ complaints within a reasonable period of time to prevent delays to a resident’s right to progress their complaint if they wish to.
36. On 3 March 2022 the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. He continued to express dissatisfaction with the outcome and the landlord’s actions. It then issued its stage two response on7 April 2022. This was in accordance with the landlord’s policy which states responses should be completed within 25 working days.

Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the neighbour’s toilet.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

40. The landlord was proactive in taking measures such as writing and visiting the neighbour, attempting to find alternative accommodation for them and contacting support networks to help to address and prevent the ongoing ASB.
41. We recognise there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of noise. However the landlord addressed the matter, took reasonable steps to investigate the issue, and appropriately considered compensation with regards to the delays investigating the toilet noise, which we find to be reasonable.
42. The landlord’s delays in registering the resident’s complaint via its internal complaint procedure caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Order

43. The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.