London Borough of Barnet (202513388)

Background

1. The resident experienced noise transference issues caused by her neighbour’s lifestyle and door slamming. She also said her neighbour did not occupy their property, and the local authority was bias because of a relationship a senior staff member held with her neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
   2. Reports her neighbour did not occupy their property.
   3. Reports of bias from the local authority.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents ASB reports.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour did not occupy the property.
   3. The resident’s reports of bias from the local authority to be outside jurisdiction.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s ASB reports

4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s ASB reports in line with its ASB policy. It did not complete a risk assessment or communicate the evidence it needed to take further action. It apologised for its poor ASB handling and communication but it did not offer proportionate compensation to put matters right.

The resident’s reports about her neighbour’s occupancy

5. The local authority’s corporate anti-fraud team (CAFT) investigates tenancy fraud activity. The landlord appropriately referred the resident and her reports to CAFT and it explained it was not responsible for CAFT. It also said the CAFT investigation found no evidence of fraudulent activity.

The resident reports of bias from the local authority.

6. The Local Government and Social Housing Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates matters involving local authority services. We do not consider matters that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.

The resident’s complaint

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy. It did not provide compensation for its complaint handling failings, so its resolution was not proportionate to the time and trouble it caused the resident.

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

9. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord says it will investigate ASB reports in line with its ASB and hate crime policy. Its policy says it will provide advice and support to residents, take proportionate action, and work in partnership with other agencies to prevent ASB problems.
10. The resident reported ASB incidents and sent diary sheets to the landlord to evidence the nuisance she experienced. It was right for it to gather evidence of nuisance to decide its action. The landlord sent 3 warning letters to the resident’s neighbour and spoke to her on several occasions. This was in line with its ASB policy. However, it did not manage the resident’s expectations by explaining the level of evidence it needed to take legal action. It also did not send her its action plan as it said it would in March 2024.
11. The landlord viewed the resident’s video recordings as part of its investigation. This approach was appropriate because it allowed the landlord to gain an accurate understanding of the issues in line with our Spotlight report on noise complaints. As the landlord had difficulty determining the noise level from the recordings, it was reasonable for it to arrange a follow-up visit. The landlord explained its assessment to the resident.
12. The landlord advised the resident to report threats to the police but failed to contact the police or environmental health after she reported doing so on 16 April 2024 and provided crime reference numbers. It only stated on 21 June 2024 that it would contact the police about the ASB, which was unreasonable and contrary to its ASB policy
13. The landlord repaired the neighbour’s door frame and hinges in July 2023. It also gave the neighbour a deadline to install an internal door closer before it considered installing this itself. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest a door closer, given the ongoing impact of the door slamming on the resident. It would have been better if it installed this itself without delay. It later installed a door lock handle and a draught excluder to reduce the noise impact.
14. The landlord told the resident its ASB policy did not classify door slamming as ASB. However, the resident said its ASBPRT template confirmed door slamming was noise nuisance. It was unreasonable for the landlord to give conflicting advice about its definition of ASB.
15. The resident requested soundproofing for her property. The landlord declined the request based on its policy and confirmed this in its stage 1 response. Later, the landlord said it did not have a soundproofing policy, meaning its earlier advice was incorrect. This inconsistency caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord clarified its position on soundproofing only after sending its final complaint response.
16. The landlord considered using an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) which asked the resident’s neighbour to be mindful and reduce noise nuisance. Using an ABA was in line with its ASB policy and was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it later explained her neighbour did not sign the agreement but this would not prevent it using the ABA as evidence if needed. Clarifying this information was supportive and managed her expectations. It would have been better if it explained this to her sooner as this caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the landlord’s advice. 
17. The landlord offered the resident access to mediation services. This was in keeping with its ASB policy and a reasonable approach to take to bring understanding between the neighbours. The landlord was not responsible for the resident’s decision whether to engage in this process.
18. The resident complained about how the landlord handled her ASB case. It reviewed the case and accepted its communication was delayed and its ASB case management was poor. It upheld the complaint and moved the case to a different staff member. Despite recognising these failings, the landlord did not offer compensation in line with its complaint and compensation policy. It missed the opportunity to put things right. The remedy was not proportionate to the time, trouble, stress, and inconvenience caused by poor ASB handling. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. 
19. We cannot order the landlord to pay compensation for the resident’s experience of ASB because it was not the landlord’s actions. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation. This award is consistent with our remedies guidance. It reflects time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the landlord caused the resident due to its failure to follow its policy.

20. The resident told the landlord her neighbour was not living at her property. In September 2023 the landlord told the resident to refer her concerns to the local authority’s CAFT service. It gave her the contact information.
21. In February 2024 the landlord told the resident it sent her tenancy fraud concerns to CAFT itself. It was right for it to send her reports to the local authority’s specialist anti-fraud team for investigation.
22. In April and May 2024, the resident said the CAFT had not contacted her about the tenancy fraud concerns. The landlord explained it was not responsible for CAFT because it is an independent local authority agency. It also said it referred her concerns to CAFT who investigated the tenancy fraud concerns and closed the case when it found no evidence. This was a reasonable response to manage her expectations about its responsibilities.
23. Overall, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour did not occupy the property.

24. In her April and May 2024 complaints, the resident said the local authority was bias toward her because of her neighbours’ relationship with a council leader. The landlord recommended the resident raised her concerns with the local authority for investigation. It explained it was not responsible for the actions of the local authority or its staff.
25. The LGSCO investigates matters involving local authority services. We have therefore found the resident’s complaint about the actions of the local authority to be outside jurisdiction. If the resident is still unhappy with the local authority’s handling of her circumstances, or the actions of a council leader, she could ask the LGSCO to investigate.

26. In May 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident about its handling of her ASB reports, 7 weeks before it registered a new complaint about staff conduct. It explained it would investigate the new complaint separately which was reasonable and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’). The resident raised her further complaint about staff conduct with us separately. We will investigate this under case reference 202510488.
27. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. On 22 March 2024 the resident asked why it had not taken her ASB reports seriously. It would have been reasonable for it to register this as a stage 1 complaint. Its failure to do so caused her time and trouble because she complained again on 8 April 2024. The landlord delayed acknowledging her stage 1 complaint until 18 April 2024. 
28. On 3 May 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord asked her to explain why she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response before it would do so. This was not in line with the Code which says residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. Landlords must make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.
29. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 17 May 2024 but it did not send its stage 2 complaint until 17 July 2024 which was not on time. 
30. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord apologised for its delayed complaint responses and upheld the complaint. However, it did not offer the resident compensation for its complaint handling failings. We have ordered it to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation for its minor failings to put things right, in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range.

Learning

31. The landlord could have explained the level of evidence it needed to take further action in response to the resident’s ASB reports to better manage her expectations.
32. The landlord should have completed an up to date risk assessment when the resident reported harassment and intimidation from neighbours. It should also have reviewed and responded to these reports in line with its ASB policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord did not provide us with evidence of an opened ASB case file, or the warning letters sent it to the resident’s neighbours about expected behavioural standards.
34. On 2 February 2024, the landlord thanked the resident for sending emails dated 22 and 29 January 2024. The landlord did not send us evidence of these emails.
35. The landlord referred to a meeting with the resident’s neighbour on 5 February 2024, however it did not provide evidence of the meeting outcomes to us.
36. The resident referred to an ASBPRT template letter which confirmed door banging was an example of noise nuisance. The landlord did not provide this as evidence.

Communication

37. The landlord did not consistently respond to the resident’s emails and requests for information fully which resulted in her restating concerns in subsequent emails.