Harlow District Council (202435429)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435429

Harlow District Council

18 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and fly-tipping by a neighbour.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s most recent complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat which shares a communal front garden with the property below. The resident lives there with his partner and their child. The landlord is aware that his partner is pregnant and that the situation has been impacting her mental health.
On 27 September 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour was dumping rubbish in their shared front garden. On 11 October 2023 he told the landlord this had been happening for 2 years. He said he had attempted to speak with them but they were aggressive.
The resident raised a complaint on 18 December 2023, saying that the landlord had not taken action and had missed appointments with him. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 January 2024, in which it said:
1. it had made an appointment to visit the resident on 6 November 2023, however the member of staff was unwell – a visit went ahead on 13 November 2023
2. following this visit it wrote to the neighbour instructing them to remove the items from the front garden
3. it visited again on 21 December 2023 to check the items had been removed, but acknowledged it did not provide an update to the resident – it apologised for this
The resident did not request escalation of this complaint. However, he continued to report ASB and on 12 July 2024 he asked the landlord to raise a new complaint. He said the issues with ASB and rubbish had not been resolved, despite 10 months of him raising it.
The landlord sent it stage 1 response on 26 July 2024, in which it said:
1. following the previous complaint, it agreed to carry out follow up monitoring, which it did in January and February 2024 – no issues with rubbish were reported during these visits
2. on 10 May 2024, the resident reported an incident that took place the previous day where he said the neighbour had verbally abused his partner – the resident confirmed he had reported this to the Police
3. it interviewed both parties in line with its ASB policy and it was agreed the neighbour would avoid direct contact with the resident and his family – the landlord wrote to both parties and said it would monitor the situation for 3 months
4. the Police took no further action due to insufficient evidence
5. on 8 June 2024, the resident contacted it about the neighbour not disposing of rubbish correctly – it contacted the neighbour on 11 June 2024, who removed the rubbish immediately
6. the resident reported a motorbike parked illegally – the landlord served a legal notice on 24 July 2024 for this to be removed within 7 days
7. it had responded to all reports from the resident in a timely manner and taken appropriate action
On 5 August 2024, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as he said the landlord was not taking its job seriously and that the neighbour had been allowed to get away with everything. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 August 2024, in which it said:
1. it had made several visits after the resident had reported issues with rubbish – on some occasions the area had been generally tidy, on others the neighbour had removed items when asked to
2. it was satisfied that it had attempted to deal with issues as they were presented but issues had gone on too long
3. it suggested that the resident and the neighbour could consider mediation or a restorative justice approach and it provided a leaflet with further details
4. the resident could request an ASB case review – the case may not meet the threshold, but if it did this could potentially provide a mechanism for a better multi-agency response
On 24 December 2024, the resident contacted us and asked us to investigate the complaint. He said issues had remained unresolved for 15 months and the neighbour had been verbally abusing them through their video doorbell.
On 5 March 2025, the resident raised a new complaint to the landlord. He said that he believed the landlord’s member of staff dealing with the case had a personal relationship with the neighbour and so was treating him unfairly. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 March 2025, in which it said:
1. further incidents with the neighbour had been reported in January 2025
2. it had interviewed the neighbour, who had agreed not to make further contact with the resident – the Police told it the neighbour had signed a community resolution agreement agreeing to this
3. it had worked closely with the Police and it deemed the action they took appropriate, so it did not consider that it needed to take further action at that time
4. it had found no evidence to support that its member of staff had a personal relationship with the neighbour and would not be reassigning that member of staff

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised multiple complaints, the most recent of which was raised on 5 March 2025. This complaint has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, as explained below, we have found a failing in relation to this. On this basis, the issues raised in this complaint have been considered as part of this investigation.
The resident described how the landlord’s response had negatively affected his partner’s mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident and his family’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health.
They may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

ASB and fly-tipping

The landlord’s ASB policy includes a list of the types of behaviour considered to be anti-social, including abusive or insulting words or behaviours, aggressive and threatening language or behaviour, rubbish dumping and misuse of communal areas. In the ASB policy says it will:
1. ensure reporting of ASB is as easy as possible, take all reports seriously, by recording and investigating all cases, and keep victims informed of action taken
2. take any reasonable early action to protect people and property
3. consider all possible powers, civil and criminal, available to it and take appropriate action
4. forward reports of ASB to the Police where necessary
5. take into account when a victim or a perpetrator is a vulnerable person
6. upon first receipt of a report of ASB, it will complete a risk assessment and full interview with the complainant
7. respond in a timely manner to reports of breaches of ASB enforcement measures
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2023 to say that the neighbour had left rubbish in their shared front garden. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to this report, which was not appropriate. He contacted it again on 11 October 2023 to say that he had been having ongoing issues with the neighbour since he moved in 2 years ago. He said he had attempted to speak to them but they were aggressive.
On 9 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that it had agreed to visit on 6 November 2023. He said it had not arrived, and it had not notified him it would be unable to attend. He said he felt the matter was not being taken seriously and a fridge freezer had been left outside his door for 2 months. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate at this time, it should have let the resident know if it needed to rearrange the appointment.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day and apologised for the missed appointment. It said it would visit on 13 November 2023. The landlord had not provided any records to show what happened at this meeting. However, it subsequently wrote to the neighbour on 16 November 2023 and told them to clear the items from the front patio, which was a reasonable step.
On 7 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update. It responded the same day to say arrangements had been made for the fridge freezer to be removed and the area cleared. It said it would visit on 14 December 2023 to check it had been cleared. The resident emailed the landlord that day to ask if the visit went ahead. We have seen no evidence it responded to him. This was not appropriate and not in line with its ASB policy which says it will keep residents updated with its actions.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 18 December 2023, which it acknowledged the same day. An internal email of 4 January 2024 shows photos of the area clear from rubbish, however it is not clear when these photos were taken.
In its stage 1 response of 9 January 2024 the landlord said it had taken steps to address the rubbish in the communal front garden. It acknowledged there was a delay in the fridge freezer being removed and it did not update the resident or provide confirmation that it had checked the items were removed. It is reasonable the landlord noted its failings and apologised for these. This was an appropriate response at that time. There is no evidence the resident asked for this complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
On 10 May 2024, the resident made an ASB report to the landlord. He said he had reported the neighbour to the Police the day before for threatening behaviour and abusive language. He sent the landlord a video with evidence of the incident. The landlord has provided no evidence it responded to the report or met with the resident to carry out an interview and risk assessment in line with its policy, which was not appropriate.
On 14 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again to say things had got worse and his partner had been verbally abused in front of their child. He said this was affecting her mental health and she was scared to leave the property to go to work. The landlord responded the same day to ask for his consent to interview the neighbour and any other witnesses, which was an appropriate step.
The landlord met with the neighbour on 20 May 2024 and wrote to the resident on 22 May 2024 to update him. It said the neighbour had admitted to being verbally abusive, but that they had felt intimidated by the resident recording them. It said the neighbour did not want to interact with the resident and had agreed not to do so. It said it would monitor the situation for 3 months.
The meeting was a reasonable action by the landlord. However, its ASB case management guide says it will agree an action plan and send a copy of this to the resident. We have seen no evidence an action plan was agreed.This was not appropriate, as this would have set expectations for the resident both of what the landlord would do to monitor things and what was expected of him in terms of reporting. The lack of action plan left the resident not knowing what was happening with the case.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 June 2024, saying that there was rubbish on their side of the garden again and that his partner was on medication for anxiety due to the situation. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded, which was not appropriate. It emailed him on 4 July 2024 asking if there had been any further incidents and did not mention his previous email.
On 6 July 2024, the resident responded to the landlord to say there had been no new altercations as they had been avoiding the neighbour. However, he said the neighbour had missed the last 4 bin days and had rubbish piled on top of their bin as a result. The landlord did not respond and on 12 July 2024 the resident contacted it again and asked to raise a new complaint. He said he had been raising the issues with the neighbour for 10 months and nothing had been resolved.
On 16 July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to say he had to call the Police again as he felt frightened in his home. He said the Police had opened a new case and upgraded it from intimidation to harassment. He said that it was less than 3 months since the landlord’s last letter but it was not carrying out any monitoring.
On 25 July 2024, the landlord contacted the Police and asked about its ongoing investigations, which was a reasonable step, in line with its ASB policy. The Police responded the next day to say that there were 2 investigations in relation to the neighbour’s behaviour on the resident’s video doorbell. It said it would be taking no further action due to a lack of evidence.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 July 2024. It said it had carried out follow up checks in January and February 2024, however we have seen no evidence of checks being carried out in February 2024. It said that no rubbish had been reported during these visits.
The landlord said it had acted in line with its ASB policy following the resident’s report of an incident in May 2024 by interviewing the neighbour and writing to both parties. It told the resident it had been in contact with the Police, who were not taking any further action due to insufficient evidence.
The landlord said it had contacted the neighbour on 11 June 2024 following the resident’s report of rubbish and asked them to remove it. It had carried out an inspection on 11 July 2024 following his further report of rubbish and broken glass. It said it had not found any broken glass but had contacted the neighbour to ask it to immediately remove some household waste, which they did the next day.
Finally, the landlord said it had responded to the resident’s concerns about a motorbike left in the garden. It had served legal notice on 24 July 2024, saying this must be moved within 7 days. It said it would arrange for removal if this was not done. It said it had responded to all reports in a timely manner and taken appropriate action. It failed to recognise that it had not always provided the resident with updates in line with its ASB policy, which was not appropriate.
On 30 July 2024, the resident reported a further incident of the neighbour harassing him through the doorbell camera. The landlord asked for the incident number, which he provided on 1 August 2024. He said he was on holiday until 8 August 2024. The landlord visited the area on 2 August 2024 and found the communal area clear apart from a suitcase the neighbour said they were leaving out for another neighbour to take. It found no rubbish or glass and told the neighbour to ask for its assistance if they were having issues managing refuse. However, there is no evidence it discussed the report of harassment with them, which was not appropriate.
The Police emailed the landlord on 3 August 2024 and said that the neighbour was reported by the resident for swearing and intimidating behaviour. They said that the mobile phone footage recorded by the resident was not conclusive enough to pursue a case. They had carried out house to house interviews but these were also inconclusive.
On 5 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint, as he said it was not taking its responsibilities seriously. He emailed it again on 7 August 2024 to say that more rubbish had been dumped in the communal garden while they were on holiday. On 16 August 2024 he said he had received no response to his previous email and had now found glass in the garden. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident to acknowledge either of these reports, which was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 response of 27 August 2024, the landlord said that it had always attempted to deal with the issues presented. It did accept that the issue had gone on too long and said the resident could request an ASB case review. It provided a link with more information on this, which was reasonable. We have not seen evidence that the resident subsequently requested a case review. The landlord also said the resident and the neighbour could consider mediation and provided more information about this.
On 16 September 2024, the resident requested a face-to-face meeting with the landlord. We have not seen any evidence that this went ahead or that the landlord responded to this request, which was not appropriate. On 1 October 2024, the resident reported rubbish outside his door and said he could barely get out of his door due to this. On 9 October 2024 he reported and ASB incident where the neighbour was shouting and swearing at his partner.
On 24 October 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had met with the neighbour and investigated matters in line with its policy. It said the neighbour had agreed to avoid making direct contact with him, would not swear at him and would not intentionally stare into the doorbell camera. It said the neighbour had been made aware of the potential consequences and it would monitor the situation for 3 months.
The landlord’s actions at this stage were not proportionate. The neighbour had already previously admitted to engaging in the actions the resident had accused them of. The landlord had met with them and asked them to stop this behaviour and said it would monitor this situation. These actions had not prevented the behaviour and the resident had reported the neighbour’s behaviour several times since the first warning. The landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to resolving the situation by escalating the case in line with its ASB policy and procedures. It did not act proactively by continuing to say it had spoken to the neighbour and would monitor the issues.
The landlord’s internal records of 20 November 2024 say a further incident of verbal aggression by the neighbour was reported. The resident told the landlord noise had also been reported to the Police. It said it advised him to contact the local authority’s Environmental Health team to discuss the noise app for his phone. While this can be a useful step for establishing whether noise is a statutory nuisance, in this case noise was not happening in isolation. So, the landlord should have taken ownership of the situation rather than directing the resident elsewhere.
On 27 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident following a meeting the previous day. It confirmed that the resident did not want to engage in mediation. It said there would be a dedicated case manager, who would carry out weekly inspections, which would have been a reasonable step, however there is no evidence these weekly inspections subsequently took place.
On 4 December 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to say that less than 2 weeks after their meeting the neighbour had been ringing the doorbell and ‘laughing creepily’ into the camera. The landlord told the resident it would follow up with the Police about whether this would be classed as harassment. However, there is no evidence it followed up on this, which was not appropriate.
On 22 December 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say the weekly inspections had not taken place for 2 weeks. He said the neighbour had got home late and slammed doors, waking his child. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this report, which was not appropriate.
The resident reported a further incident on 2 January 2025. He said the neighbour had used aggressive and threatening language and behaviour. At this time, a risk assessment was completed, which was assessed as medium risk. It was inappropriate that it took the landlord so long to carry out a risk assessment, as its policy and procedure is clear that this should be done at the beginning of a case and updated regularly. The landlord’s records show it carried out an inspection on 6 January 2025, which found no issues, but there is no evidence it investigated the reported incident.
The landlord met with the resident on 20 January 2025 and followed up in writing on 29 January 2025. It said it had also met with the neighbour, who had agreed that their behaviour, captured on the resident’s doorbell camera, was not acceptable. However, they said they felt intimidated and anxious about being recorded on the doorbell camera.
The landlord told the resident that the neighbour would be receiving a warning letter. It asked the resident to consider if he was able to reposition the doorbell camera so it would not record the neighbour’s comings and goings. It said it would monitor the situation for 3 months and reminded the resident he could ask for an ASB case review via the community trigger. Overall, these were reasonable actions by the landlord. However, it could have set out more clearly what its monitoring would entail, given that the resident had already raised concerns about what it was doing to monitor matters.
On 5 March 2025, the resident raised a new complaint as he was unhappy that the issues were still ongoing. At this time, he raised concerns that the member of staff involved with dealing with the issues had a personal relationship with the neighbour. He said this was a conflict of interest and matters were being brushed under the carpet.
On 9 March 2025, the resident reported a hate crime, saying that the neighbour had verbally abused his partner in relation to her being ‘foreign’. In its stage 1 response of 18 March 2025, the landlord said it had carried out further interviews in relation to recent reports. It said the neighbour had agreed to make no further contact with the resident and that the Police said they had signed a community resolution agreeing to this. It said that as the Police had taken this action, which it deemed to be appropriate, no further action was considered necessary at this time.
The landlord also said it had no evidence that the member of staff involved has a personal relationship with the neighbour, so it would not be reallocating them. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service of its investigation into this issue, so it is unclear how it determined there was no conflict of interest, which was not appropriate.
On 22 April 2025, the landlord installed a side gate to allow the neighbour access to their front door without crossing the communal front garden. This was a proactive step. The resident has told this Service recently that the neighbour has not been using this gate. This is not something that the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate, so we have not investigated this matter.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and fly-tipping by a neighbour. The resident has been regularly reporting issues with the neighbour for over 18 months and the landlord has taken limited action to resolve matters. It repeatedly had the same conversation with the neighbour, where they admitted wrongdoing, and then just said it would monitor the situation without taking any substantive action.
From the neighbour’s own admissions, there does not appear to be any dispute that they engaged in the behaviour that the resident reported. The resident made it clear that the issues were having an impact on his partner’s mental health and wellbeing. He has told us that this has caused him and his family distress and it has been frustrating that the landlord has not taken their reports seriously. On many occasions the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports within a timely manner. It also failed to carry out a risk assessment until January 2025.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord did liaise with the Police, who decided not to take any further action as they did not feel they had sufficient evidence. However, this does not mean the landlord could not take action of its own, and it has failed to demonstrate that it has acted proportionately, or in line with its ASB policy.
An order has been made for the landlord to carry out an ASB case review to assess the ongoing situation. This review should be carried out by a suitably qualified manager with experience in dealing with ASB. The landlord should put together an action plan for resolving the situation. The reviewing manager should carry out monthly reviews to ensure independent oversight, until such a time that they and the resident are satisfied matters are resolved. A copy of the review and action plan should be provided to the resident and this Service.
An order has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in dealing with the ASB and fly-tipping. This award has been made with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind.
Finally, an order has been made for the landlord to undertake a case review to understand why it did not follow its ASB policy and procedure. It should carry out staff training to ensure that able to put its ASB policy in practice. A copy of its training schedule should be provided to this Service.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days of receipt and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It says that if the resident remains unhappy they should ask it to escalate the complaint. The policy does not stipulate a specific contact method the resident must use for the escalation request. At stage 2 the landlord will acknowledge the escalation request within 3 working days and send its response within 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 5 March 2025. We have not seen any evidence the landlord sent any acknowledgment. It sent its stage 1 response on 18 March 2025, which was within its policy timescale. On 20 March 2025 the resident told the landlord he was not happy with its response, however it responded to say it could not escalate the complaint as he had not responded to the complaint handler. It told him he would need to escalate it via a form on its website.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not acknowledge the complaint when it was first raised. It also put an unnecessary barrier in front of the resident when he wanted to escalate it. Its policy does not state that the request for escalation must be done via a form online, or directly to the complaint handler. It could have forwarded his request to the correct person to allow for the complaint to be escalated.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and fly-tipping by a neighbour.
2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord to:
1. pay the resident compensation of total compensation of £600, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and fly-tipping
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failures
2. provide the resident with a written apology from a senior manager, recognising the failings identified in this report
3. carry out an ASB case review to assess the ongoing situation – this review should be carried out by a suitably qualified manager with experience in dealing with ASB
4. put together an action plan for resolving the situation – the reviewing manager should carry out monthly reviews to ensure independent oversight, until such a time that they and the resident are satisfied matters are resolved
5. provide a copy of the review and action plan to the resident and this Service
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to undertake a case review to understand why it did not follow its ASB policy and procedure. It should carry out staff training to ensure that able to put its ASB policy in practice. A copy of its training schedule should be provided to this Service.