Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Haringey London Borough Council (202320733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320733

Haringey London Borough Council

6 January 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2022, and reported that she was experiencing a noise disturbance from her neighbour. She explained that her neighbour was told “on several occasions” to remove her laminate flooring. She said the landlord had failed to act on her reports of ASB. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 February 2022 and advised her to consider mediation, as the neighbour was willing to go to mediation. It also said it would issue a warning letter about the laminate flooring. The landlord sent the resident’s neighbour a warning letter about alleged noise nuisance, and the laminate flooring, on 3 March 2022.
  3. The resident continued to report incidents of noise disturbance in May, and June 2022. The landlord sent the resident diary sheets to provide information about incidents, on 7 July 2022. It also said it would do an unannounced inspection of the neighbour’s property.
  4. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case on 1 August 2022. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2022. It explained that her neighbour had agreed to replace the flooring with carpet and would do so after the major planned works in her property were complete. It explained the works were delayed. It said it had asked the neighbour to reduce the day to day noise from their property. It also explained how she could report noise disturbance to the local authority noise enforcement team. It explained how to report concerns to the police if the resident felt in fear of her safety. It restated that her neighbour had agreed to mediation if she wanted to go ahead.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord to make a further complaint on 31 October 2022. She said the issues with ASB were not improving, and asked the landlord what the next steps it would take were. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2023, and restated its position about the flooring. It also explained the actions it had taken in the ASB case, including issuing warnings to the resident’s neighbour. It apologised for the delay in sending its complaint response.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 20 July 2023, and apologised for the delay in sending the response. It set out that it had taken “all the necessary steps to help resolve the matter”, and restated its position on the flooring. It explained the resident did not meet the threshold for a transfer due to the “low level” ASB.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 8 January 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the situation with her neighbour was not resolved and she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of it.
  8. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property to measure up for carpets in June 2024. The resident contacted the in October 2024 and said the major works at her property had started and she had been rehoused temporarily. She asked it the landlord could make the move permanent. It is unclear whether the landlord responded to the request.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
  2. The landlord’s website states that for noise complaints resident should keep a log of all incidents, and only to report incidents to it if it the issue occurs more than 3 times in a month. The website states it will get in contact within 10 working days of a noise complaint.
  3. Throughout her complaint, and when she brought her complaint to this Service, the resident raised a concern that the ASB had affected her, and her son’s health. The resident expressed a concern that the landlord’s failure to appropriately resolve the matter had increased the impact. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  4. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance (if it has it), or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her, or her son’s, health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. The Ombudsman has considered any general distress and/or inconvenience caused by errors by a landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her family’s health.
  5. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  6. The resident first complained about noise transference from her neighbour’s property in 2020. The resident made a complaint and the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response in October 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to bring complaint to our Service in a timely manner, after the landlord issues its final complaint response (usually within 12 months). This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for us to carry out a thorough investigation and for informed decisions to be made. We have therefore decided not to investigate matter dating back to 2020. Therefore, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from January 2022 onwards.
  7. When the resident reported concerns about noise disturbance and ASB in January 2022, the landlord said it would provide an update, but did not respond until 11 February 2022, a month later. This was an unreasonable delay and outside of the timeframes for responses listed on its website. This caused the resident an inconvenience.
  8. The evidence indicates the landlord did complete a risk assessment with the resident, in line with accepted best practice. However, from the information available it is unclear when this took place. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord completed an ASB action plan, this was inappropriate. This caused the resident an inconvenience as she was left not knowing the actions the landlord planned to take in his case. And she was not given formal advice about steps she could take.
  9. The resident reported further noise disturbance in May and June 2022. Again, we have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord responded within its target timeframes at the time. The landlord did contact the resident on 7 July 2022 to set out its position and outline the actions it was going to take (an inspection of the neighbour’s property. The actions were appropriate in the circumstances, but the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in the landlord taking action when she reported concerns.
  10. The landlords stage 1 complaint response, of August 2022, set out the actions it had taken in relation to the ASB. It also sought to explain its position about the flooring and encouraged the resident to engage in mediation with her neighbour. This response was appropriate in the circumstances and went some way to putting right its earlier poor communication about its position on the ASB case.
  11. It is noted the resident was frustrated about the flooring issue. However, the landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to set out its position that the neighbour would replace the flooring with carpet after the major works were finished. This position was appropriate in the circumstances, and it would not be reasonable to expect a neighbour to install new carpets ahead of major works.
  12. The evidence shows that on receipt of further reports of ASB and noise nuisance in August and September 2022, the landlord considered the evidence the resident sent. The landlord contacted the resident to outline its position that the evidence did not amount to a statutory noise nuisance that was actionable. The information provided for this investigation shows it discussed the evidence with its noise enforcement team, in September 2022, and was advised there was no actionable evidence. That it again encouraged the resident to engage in mediation with her neighbour was appropriate in the circumstances.
  13. The landlord used to its stage 1 complaint response, of January 2023, to set out its position on the ASB, and gave advice about how the resident could report concerns about safeguarding. This was appropriate in the circumstance, and evidence it had taken the resident’s reports seriously. It explained the actions it had taken, and set out that it did not have evidence a statutory noise nuisance had occurred. While it is noted the resident was disappointed it had not taken action against her neighbour, the landlord outlined its position with clarity and consistency.
  14. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response of July 2023 to outlined its position on the ASB and the floor coverings. While appropriate to set out its position that the resident did not meet the criteria for a transfer, the tone of its response was inappropriate. The resident was evidently distressed at the situation wither her neighbour, to therefore refer to the ASB as “low level” lacked empathy and was dismissive of her concerns. The landlord’s response did little to reduce the distress she felt or build trust with her.
  15. The evidence shows the major works were delayed, which ultimately led to a delay in the neighbour’s floor coverings being replaced. As the major works were not the subject of the complaint it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider the landlord’s handling of the major works. There was a delay and the landlord’s position on the replacement flooring. It is therefore reasonable to expect it to have explored other avenues to reduce noise transference ahead of the floors being replaced. That it did not do so is evidence it did not adopt the approach recommended in our spotlight report on noise, which is available on our website.
  16. The spotlight report, which was published in October 2022, recommend that landlord where “hard flooring is present, the landlord should signpost residents where appropriate to funding for carpets and rugs.” We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord took such an approach, or considered other ways to support the resident’s neighbour in reducing the noise transference. Considering the delay in the major works, a more supportive and thorough approach around the floor coverings would have been appropriate.
  17. The landlord told this Service, in December 2024, that it was unable to make the resident’s temporary move permanent. We have seen no evidence to indicate that it responded to the resident’s query about this, which caused her an inconvenience. If it has not already done so, the landlord must formally notify the resident of its position on this matter.
  18. The landlord needed evidence in order to progress with an ASB case, and encouraged the resident to provide evidence throughout. When the resident did supply evidence the landlord gave it the appropriate consideration. However, its communication about its findings, and the ASB case more generally was poor. We have see no evidence that the landlord completed an action plan, in line with accepted best practice. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in its handling of the matter.
  19. Our remedies guidance states that orders between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident and it has made no attempt to put things right. Considering this we have determined an order for £225 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB in January 2022. That the landlord did not open a complaint at that time was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint. That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and experienced further time and trouble as she needed to raise a further complaint in April 2022.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response in May 2022. This was 4 months after she first complained, and an unreasonable delay. That the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling was inappropriate. It missed an opportunity to show learning and build trust with the resident.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint in August 2022. It is noted the landlord sent the response within the appropriate timeframe for a stage 1 response. The issues raised within the complaint related to the same substantive issues of its complaint response of May 2022. Therefore, its failure to open a stage 2 complaint at that point was inappropriate and created a protracted complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, as she was subjected to an unduly long process
  5. In October 2022, the resident sought to complain about the landlord’s ongoing handling of the ASB. Again, it was inappropriate that the landlord opened another stage 1 complaint investigation. This was unfair and lengthened an already protracted complaints process. The resident was caused a further inconvenience, and the landlord’s failure to issue a final complaint response impacted on the resident’s ability to seek assistance from this Service.
  6. The landlord sent a further stage 1 complaint response in January 2023, 3 months after the resident complained. This was an unreasonable delay, and further failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced time and trouble due to the need to chase the landlord for its complaint response, in December 2022. We welcome the fact the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. However, its response lacked learning, and did not offer appropriate redress to the resident.
  7. The resident explicitly asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure on 6 January 2023. The landlord responded on 31 January 2023 and said it would “go back” to the relevant service area to “ask if there was any further action [it] could take before escalating to stage 2”. This was inappropriate and further evidence the landlord operated an obstructive complaints process. The evidence shows it sought to delay the resident taking her complaint to stage 2.
  8. We welcome the fact the landlord wanted to raise concerns with the relevant service area to progress her case. It would have been appropriate to also open a stage 2 complaint investigation at the same time. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failure to open a stage 2 complaint investigation at that time. She experienced further time and trouble when she had to raise the issue again in March 2023, before the landlord opened its stage 2 investigation.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in July 2023, 7 months after the resident first asked it to open a stage 2 complaint. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. Again, the landlord failed to show learning or offer appropriate redress for its poor complaint handling. It is acknowledged that the landlord did apologise for the delay.
  10. Considering the above failings we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that orders between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident and it has made no attempt to put things right. Considering this we have determined an order for £200 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £425 in compensation, made up of:
      1. £225 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
      2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by errors in its complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident to explain its position on her request to make the temporary move permanent.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reminds its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
    1. Appropriately escalating a complaint to stage 2 when a resident is dissatisfied with its stage 1 response.
    2. A meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and put things right for the resident.
    3. Offering appropriate redress for admitted failings, including complaint handling delays.