Harlow District Council (202522709)

Background

1. The resident lives with her partner and children. Her partner often contacts the landlord on her behalf. She lives in a terraced house. She alleged that her neighbour (whose property is joined to hers) and their children threatened, verbally abused, and harassed her and her family. She complained in June 2025 because she felt the landlord had not resolved the antisocial behaviour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord fairly accepted its failures to communicate effectively with the resident in 2024. Despite good practices in 2025 and a detailed response to her complaint, it did not fully put things right through its complaint responses. It did not offer sufficient redress for the resident’s distress or inconvenience.
5. There was a minor delay of 1 working day in its stage 1 response but this did not significantly impact the landlord’s handling of the complaint overall.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. Our role is to assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it received in the timeframe of a complaint. This includes reviewing if the landlord has followed its procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably given all the circumstances of a case.
7. Sometimes a resident may want us to tell a landlord to evict a perpetrator of ASB or take other specific legal action. However, it is not within our authority to order a landlord to take legal action against its tenants.
8. The landlord can decide if the ASB has occurred and what the impact is on the resident and the wider community. It must consider the wider implications of its decisions, such as demand on public services, and whether the actions it takes are reasonable and proportionate. These can be complex decisions and need to be fully explained to residents.
9. The landlord has not disputed that its communication in 2024 could have been better. It recognised that it should have provided a clear decision in 2024 and sought an update from the resident before it closed the case. We have considered if the landlord has followed our dispute resolution principles when responding to the subsequent complaint. These include whether the landlord has been fair, put things right, and learned from outcomes.
10. As the landlord accepted its failings in 2024, we focused our investigation more on its handling of reports of ASB between April and August 2025.
11. The resident alleged noise nuisance, offensive and threatening gestures, and verbal abuse to the landlord online between 3 and 5 April 2025. The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s report on 7 April 2025. It arranged to interview them 13 working days later, on 25 April 2025. It was unreasonable to offer the appointment so far in advance given the allegations the resident made about threats of violence. Its ASB policy says that it will aim to complete a full interview with the reporter within 5 working days. It did not do so and this was a failing.
12. The resident highlighted the seriousness of the allegations to the landlord in a further email on 7 April 2025. The landlord accepted the request to bring forward the interview and appropriately did so 5 working days later, on 14 April 2025. Its records show that it assessed the risks to the resident and agreed actions to progress the case.
13. The landlord followed up its interview by sending a letter with its agreed action plan to the resident on 16 April 2025. This is an example of good practice. It demonstrates the mutually agreed plans to manage communication, evidence the ASB, and how it intended to resolve the ASB. This was a clear and transparent means to manage the resident’s expectations.
14. The landlord revised its action plan after meeting with the alleged perpetrator on 16 April 2025. It shared this with the resident. This was also good practice and evidence of the landlord’s intention to resolve the ASB.
15. The resident said she felt frightened by the neighbours on 16 April 2025. The landlord appropriately offered the resident priority for a move to flee harassment the same day. This was good practice and showed recognition of the impact the ASB had on her and her family.
16. The landlord continued to update the resident in writing in May 2025. It told her about interviews it did with the neighbour and the actions it agreed with them to resolve the ASB. It issued a warning to the neighbour about their behaviour and highlighted the actions it could take if they continued. It reasonably explained how it would close the case if these interventions were successful within 3 months.
17. Also in May 2025, the resident erected her own fence along the front garden. She did this to stop the neighbour walking across her garden. It was positive that the landlord promptly granted her permission for this alteration. However, in her complaint in June 2025, she said she wanted reparations for the additional costs she incurred securing her home. We have seen no evidence that would obligate the landlord to fund these but it missed the opportunity to clarify its position in its complaint responses and this was a failing.
18. The landlord reinforced the tenancy conditions and highlighted the serious actions available to it in a letter to the neighbour in June 2025. This shows it was taking the resident’s reports seriously and using options available to it to prevent the ASB escalating.
19. The landlord further demonstrated it was complying with its policies in May and June 2025. It organised a multi agency meeting to discuss the resident’s reports and the evidence available. It used this meeting to determine if enforcement action was necessary. It was reasonable to take this approach and shows it considered if its actions were proportionate. It was fair to explain the outcome of the meeting to the resident once it decided that it did not have enough evidence to pursue legal action.
20. The landlord followed up the multi-agency meeting by meeting with the resident on 12 June 2025. This was positive and allowed it to share the outcome and discuss ways to resolve the case. During this meeting it recorded that the police were still considering criminal charges against the neighbour. It listed the impact the ASB had on the resident and her family. It noted her concerns about its handling of the ASB reports and directed her to the ASB Case Review process, which is good practice.
21. Although the resident disagreed, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider using a GNC to resolve the ASB. It is important that it makes use of all the tools and powers available to it when intervening to resolve reports of ASB. GNCs can be a positive intervention tool to address inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour.
22. The landlord also noted that the resident asked if it had considered a Community Protection Warning/Notice (CPW/N). It said that it did not have a delegated authority to issue these. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it uses the tools and powers afforded it from the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ASB act). It lists the CPW/N as a key tool from this legislation. It was unfair of the landlord to dismiss this option or recognise a possible service need to ensure its officers had the appropriate authority to issue them.
23. The landlord conducted its own thorough review of the ASB case after the resident complained in June 2025. It showed that it fully considered the evidence available to it and the actions it had taken through the case. It also continued the partnership working and organised another meeting with the police and its legal services in June 2025. Its approach was reasonable and gave weight to its decision making process.
24. Overall, we found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB. The landlord accepted its communication failures in 2024 that contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It took a more proactive approach in 2025, made use of the partnership working available to it, provided regular updates to the resident and then pursued legal action when it was able to.
25. While its approach in 2025 to her reports of ASB broadly complied with its policies and procedures, and there were many examples of good practice, the landlord did not use its complaint handling effectively. It did not show how it had learned from the failures in 2024 and it did not put things right for the resident. It also did not fully address the resident’s concerns about its access to tools granted through the ASB act.
26. The landlord should ensure that its staff have a good understanding of the tools and powers from the ASB Act. It must also pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. We order this in accordance with our remedies guidance as the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment caused to the resident.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and issue responses at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of escalation.
28. The landlord appropriately recognised the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 15 June 2025 as a complaint. It issued its stage 1 response 11 working days later, on 1 July 2025. This was broadly within the timescales required to send a response.
29. The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 11 July 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 19 working days later, on 7 August 2025. This was within the required timescales.
30. We found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. Although it did not acknowledge the slight delay at stage 1, it broadly maintained its complaint handling commitments.

Learning

ASB

31. The landlord has a good robust policy to deal with reports of ASB. It was considerate in its approach, made effective use of partnership working, and provided examples of good practice. There are key points of learning to share such as the detailed action plans, complainant interviews, and risk assessments.
32. It is important that the landlord considers and makes use of all tools and powers available to it when responding to reports of ASB. As a local authority, it can request delegated authority to ASB officers to issue CPW/Ns. It should consider if it is making effective use of this tool in its casework.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord kept clear and accurate records of its interactions with each party throughout the case. It showed that it had a good system to manage reports of ASB.

Communication

34. In 2025, the landlord’s communication with the resident was particularly good. It kept her informed of its decisions throughout the process, conducted regular reviews, and provided written updates.
35. The failures occurred in 2024 when it did not inform the resident it was closing the case. It should ensure its staff recognise the need to inform residents when closing an investigation into ASB. It should consider a more proactive approach to investigations that involve allegations of verbal abuse, or threats of violence.