Haringey London Borough Council (202449599)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202449599 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Haringey London Borough Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
10 December 2025 |
Background
- The resident reported antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from the flat above him. He said the noise affected his ability to sleep, which worsened his diagnosed mental health conditions. The landlord has no record of the resident’s health vulnerabilities.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- Complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
- Did not follow its ASB policy by failing to complete a risk assessment or demonstrate completing and sharing an action plan with the resident.
- Missed response timeframes, did not communicate delays, and incorrectly allocated the stage 1 complaint.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. |
No later than 19 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows:
This landlord must pay the resident directly and by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.
|
No later than 19 January 2026 |
|
3 |
Action order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss his reports of ongoing noise and ASB. The landlord must:
The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of its actions by the due date. |
No later than 19 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should remind its ASB teams of the importance of recording accurate case notes and evidencing all actions when receiving a new report from a resident. |
|
The landlord should check that the appropriate teams have received and responded to the resident’s interest and application for alternative housing. The landlord may consider offering the resident support if this process has stalled. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 29 October 2024 to 5 March 2025 |
The resident reported incidents of noise nuisance and threatening drunken behaviour from a neighbour on or around 29 October 2024. He continued to report incidents but said that he was going to drop his case due to fear of reprisals and disclosed his mental health conditions. The landlord reassured the resident it would act on his concerns. It provided him with housing options information and offered to meet him to complete a vulnerability assessment. The resident declined. The landlord wrote to all residents in the block to remind them of the conditions of their tenancy agreements. |
|
5 March 2025 |
The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour. It informed the resident that it had issued a warning letter as part of its efforts to address the reported noise and ASB. |
|
20 March 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord. He remained unhappy with the ongoing issues and sought for it to fund a deposit for him to move due to the situation. |
|
25 March 2025 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would respond by 8 April 2025. |
|
26 March 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had sent the resident’s neighbour a tenancy caution letter. It encouraged the resident to continue sending evidence, which it would use for any future legal action, such as a notice of seeking possession (NOSP). The landlord also encouraged the resident to contact the council’s out of hours noise team, as it may be able to take enforcement action under noise legislation. The landlord reminded the resident of his housing options and said it could not fund his desire to move home. |
|
26 March 2025 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He was unhappy that the officer involved in his ASB case had sent the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. He did not consider this an impartial investigation. |
|
8 April 2025 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. It said it would send a response by 6 May 2025. |
|
6 May 2025 |
The landlord wrote to the resident and asked to extend its response deadline. It apologised and said it would respond by 20 May 2025. |
|
23 May 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It remained satisfied with its stage 1 investigation. It said it understood how ASB could be frustrating but said it could not disclose further details of the actions it had taken, due to data protection. It asked the resident to continue sending evidence and reassured him it was acting on his concerns. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident’s complaint to us said noise and ASB continued. He described the need to contact the mental health team due to experiencing worsening mental health and suicidal thoughts. He wanted the landlord to permanently resolve the matter. |
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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident said he experienced worsening health due to the landlord’s handling of his complaint. On 8 December 2025 we discussed this matter with him. We also explained that it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any ill health caused. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any ill health and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we did investigate
- The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will support residents affected by the actions of others. This includes completing a risk assessment, agreeing an action plan, working with external agencies such as the police, and considering additional support where residents have vulnerabilities.
- Between 29 October to 6 November 2024 the resident reported the effects of ASB caused by a neighbour and explained how it affected his sleep and mental health. The landlord did not provide evidence that it recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities or considered reasonable adjustments. It also confirmed to us that it had no risk assessments recorded for the resident. Given the resident declared his vulnerabilities before he complained, it is unclear why the landlord did not record or assess how the ASB affected him. This was not consistent with its ASB policy.
- On or around 6 November 2024 the resident considered withdrawing his case due to fear of reprisals. The landlord responded to the resident the same day and it issued a warning letter to all residents in the block. However, there remains no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment based on the resident’s escalating safety and wellbeing concerns.
- The resident asked to move due to the noise and ASB. In response, the landlord provided him with information about his housing options. It also offered to meet with him to complete a vulnerability assessment to support his application, which he declined. The landlord’s explanation that it could not provide the resident with financial support to move home was reasonable. There is no legal obligation on the landlord to offer this service.
- While it was the resident’s choice to decline the meeting at this stage, the landlord’s offer demonstrated its efforts to give him housing information and access to external support. This was consistent with its ASB policy. However, there is still no evidence of any risk assessment based on the resident’s difficulties living in his home.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response refers to it completing an action plan. The resident disputes receiving such plans. We have also not identified any evidence of any action plans which showed how the landlord would monitor or address matters. Given the resident had reported worsening health and fear of reprisals, it is unclear why the landlord did not apply this part of its ASB policy. Without up to date action plans, the resident may have lacked clarity about the steps the landlord would take, and what support would be available, if matters escalated.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response reasonably suggested that the resident contact the council’s out-of-hours noise team to pursue the matter under statutory noise legislation. However, there is no evidence that the landlord explained the difference between its responsibilities as a housing provider and the role of the council’s noise team. When we spoke to the resident on 8 December 2025, he did not recognise this distinction and believed he had already reported the noise issues to the council in its capacity as his landlord. If the landlord had followed this up as part of an action plan, it may have identified the resident’s need for support and clarification to escalate his noise complaint.
- The landlord’s complaint responses said that it was acting on the resident’s reports and we are satisfied that it has provided us evidence of its efforts. Although it did not share all details of its actions with the resident, this was appropriate given its data protection responsibilities. However, the absence of an action plan meant the resident lacked clarity about the landlord’s approach, which could reasonably cause distress and inconvenience. This may have reduced the resident’s confidence in how the landlord was handling his ASB reports.
- Any tenancy enforcement action must also be reasonable and proportionate, and the landlord has demonstrated to us that it used informal interventions before considering formal measures, such as a NOSP. This approach is consistent with its need to justify its actions to a court. However, given the resident reported no improvement and ongoing ASB, it is unclear from the landlord’s actions how it monitored how he matters affected him.
- While the landlord acted on reports, it did not fully follow its ASB policy. It did not complete a risk assessment, record vulnerabilities, or agree demonstrate completing action plans, despite the resident reporting deteriorating health vulnerabilities. These gaps in the ASB process increased the impact of the failings and amount to maladministration. The resident’s health vulnerabilities were relevant, and the landlord should have considered them. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the impact on the resident, which justifies a higher compensation award.
- We order the landlord to pay £200. This is consistent with our remedies guidance when a landlord’s failings adversely affect a resident.
- In contact with us in December 2025, the resident explained that he continued to experience noise nuisance and ASB from the same neighbour. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to assess his reports. This is to ensure the landlord meets its ongoing obligations under its ASB policy.
|
Complaint |
Complaint handling |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2024, requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. It also requires landlords to issue a stage 1 and stage 2 response within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these requirements.
- The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on time.
- The Code states that landlords must take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest. It is unclear why the landlord allocated the resident’s stage 1 complaint to its member of staff who was already involved in handling his ASB reports. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response remained satisfied that it had investigated his complaint appropriately, it has since acknowledged that its allocation at stage 1 was an oversight.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 8 April 2025, 4 working days late.
- The landlord informed the resident on 6 May 2025 of its need to extend the date of its stage 2 response. This was consistent with the Code. However, the landlord then failed to send its stage 2 response on 20 May 2025, sending it a further 3 working days later.
- While the detriment of this delay may be minimal, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident. This lack of communication was not consistent with the and its stage 2 response did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay.
- In summary, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. These failings caused the resident time and trouble. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance when failures cause delays in getting matters resolved.
Learning
General learning
- The landlord should ensure full compliance with ASB and complaint handling policies, including applying all required steps such as risk assessments and action plans.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should maintain clear records of residents’ health vulnerabilities.
Communication
- The landlord should inform residents promptly about delays, missed deadlines, and key decisions to manage expectations and maintain trust.