From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Enfield (202416326)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416326

London Borough of Enfield

15 August 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 concerns about signage on the estate.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder.  The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the second floor.  There are shared lawn areas for residents to use.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 3 October 2023.  She said that the landlord was not responding to her concern about signage on the estate, which she had brought up in 2022.  She also said that there was a problem with email communication with the landlord about the issue.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 October 2023.  The landlord said that:
    1. The resident’s complaint was not upheld.
    2. It had inspected the area around the entrance to the property and did not find that any additional signs were needed.  It went on to say that if it had not installed ‘no dog fouling’ signs at the front entrance of the property it would instruct the housing officer to get them installed.
    3. The email address the resident had for her contact with the landlord was correct and it was not sure why there could be an issue with receiving emails.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 because she:
    1. Felt that the landlord was only responding to her because she had raised a complaint, but she had been chasing with no response since August 2022 about the signage issue.  She said that several emails about the issue had been ignored.
    2. Said that some of the emails she sent to her contact at the landlord had come back as being not delivered.  She asked for a workaround for this issue.
    3. Was not asking for additional signage as the landlord suggested in its response.  She was chasing for a timeframe as to when the sign that had blown away or been removed would be replaced.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023.  The response said that:
    1. The resident’s complaint was upheld due to poor communication from the landlord about the signage issue.
    2. It apologised for the length of time it has taken for the issue with the signage to be resolved and said that significant staff changes had impacted the communication about the issue.
    3. The digital services team could not find any issues with the landlord’s email system.  The landlord provided a team email address to ensure that the resident’s emails were received.  It also acknowledged that it failed to respond to some of the resident’s emails and said this was due to staff changes.
    4. Additional dog fouling signs would be erected within the next 10 days across all three blocks and the missing ‘residents only’ sign had been ordered and would be replaced once delivered.
  6. The resident contacted this Service in July 2024 and said the signs mentioned in the stage 2 response had not been put up, so she wanted to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.  Soon after this, the landlord installed the signs as it had agreed to do in its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

  1. The lease says the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the block in a reasonable state of repair, including the upkeep of lawns and landscaped areas on the estate.  The least says the resident has ‘the right to enjoy the amenity of any landscaped areas on the estate’.
  2. The landlord’s procedure for signage is that it is reviewed based on reports made by the patch officer or caretaking operative.  If any signage is identified as damaged, missing, or in need of replacement, a review is conducted to determine whether it should be replaced.  Where necessary, new or replacement signage will be installed.
  3. The resident said that her concern with the signage has to do with non-residents using the fenced in grass area that is meant to be for residents only.  She said that non-residents had been using the space to have picnics, play football, and drink.  She explained this was a problem as they would leave rubbish and be loud, sometimes late into the night, which disturbed the peace of the residents.  She also said that non-residents had been letting their dogs foul in the grass.  She said that when she and other residents had informed people that the grass area was meant for residents only, they were rude, asked where the signs are to say residents only, and refused to leave.
  4. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident first raised a concern about the missing ‘residents only’ sign in August 2022.  Initially, the landlord responded in a reasonable way.  It completed a walk around with the resident so she could explain the issue and said it would replace the ‘residents only’ sign. It also identified a need to put up ‘no dog fouling’ signs.
  5. Following this, the landlord failed to put the signs up as agreed and the resident continued to chase this and then raised a formal complaint in October 2023.  It was not until the summer of 2024 that the landlord put the signs up, which was approximately two years from when the resident first raised the issue.  This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to take the action that it had agreed in 2022.
  6. During the two-year delay in putting the signs up, the resident continued to chase and got varying responses from the landlord about the issue, causing unnecessary frustration and inconvenience to the resident.  Examples of this include:
    1. In its stage 1 response in October 2023, the landlord said that it had determined that no additional signs were needed, which contradicted its earlier position and what had been agreed.
    2. In its stage 2 response, it said that it would put signs up and apologised for the delay and poor communication.  It explained that staffing issues had impacted its follow through on what had been agreed.
    3. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord did not put the signs up within 10 working days as agreed.  The resident raised this again in 2024 and the landlord’s new first response officer said he did not have any information about this.  It was unreasonable that the actions that had been agreed were not passed on when there were staff changes.
    4. In July 2024, the landlord put up signs but in different places than what was agreed. If the landlord did not have the information about what was agreed in 2022 in its records, it should have spoken to the resident to ensure it understood the issue.  It did not do this, causing more inconvenience to the resident as she had to follow up to chase the issue again.
  7. The landlord and resident met and walked around the estate in late July 2024 to identify where the signs were needed.  Soon after this, the landlord put up the signs as agreed.  It has provided photos of the signs in response to the complaint to this Service.
  8. In summary therefore the landlord had agreed in 2022 and 2023 to put the signs up and failed to follow through.  It put signs up in 2024, but initially not in the locations agreed.  As the landlord failed to follow through with what it had agreed and, given the poor communication with the resident about the issue, a finding of service failure has been made regarding its handling of the resident’s concerns about the signage.
  9. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delay in putting the signs up and its poor communication.
  10. In consultation with our remedies guidance and to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused, we have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 in compensation for the handling of her concerns.
  11. The resident said there is a recent issue, in 2025, with a sign that has been destroyed or removed.  This issue has not been through the landlord’s internal complaints process and was not part of this investigation.  However, to encourage effective resolution of issues at the earliest point, we have included a recommendation for the landlord to assess the signage at the estate, including the sign that has recently been removed, when the caretaking team completes its next routine inspection of the grounds.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about signage on the estate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused in its handling of her concerns about signage on the estate.
    2. Pay the resident £75 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to this complaint.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord assess the signage at the estate, including the sign that has recently been removed, when the caretaking team completes its next routine inspection of the grounds.