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 (202438842)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438842

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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat located within a block. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware the resident has any vulnerabilities.
  2. On 16 August 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about ongoing ASB by his neighbour. He said that his neighbour was dropping food and rubbish onto his property, and the issue had been happening since 2021.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 August 2023. It said that it was investigating the reported issues, and it had made the appropriate referrals to support his neighbour due to his “state of health”. It also advised that it had sent a letter to the block reminding residents of their tenancy obligations.
  4. On 31 July 2024, the landlord sent an email to the resident acknowledging his request to escalate his complaint. However, we have not seen the resident’s escalation request therefore the reasons for doing so are unclear.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 October 2024. It said that it had tried to visit the resident’s neighbour to discuss the reports but had been unable to contact them. However, it said that the resident had confirmed there had been no further incidents. It told the resident how to report any further instances of ASB. In recognition of its delayed complaint response, it offered £30 compensation.
  6. The resident remains dissatisfied as he told this Service that he is still experiencing ongoing ASB by his neighbour. He said that he is “elderly and vulnerable” and he does not feel like the landlord has taken his reports seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has referenced that ASB is an ongoing issue. This investigation has only focussed on the landlord’s handling of the ASB issues reported up until the time of its final complaint response. This is because the landlord would not have had the opportunity to explain to the resident (formally) any further steps it has taken to remedy the issue. Any further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters after its stage 2 response will need to be raised directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. We acknowledge that the incidents the resident has reported have had a significant impact on him and affected his enjoyment of his home. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, our role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This investigation will therefore assess whether the landlord has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and acted in a manner that is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
  2. The Housing Act 1996, as amended by the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014, defines ASB as:
    1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  3. The landlord has an ASB policy. It states that following a report of ASB, it would:
    1. Contact the reporting resident to ask that they keep a diary record of incidents. They would also contact the resident to listen to their experience and to agree an action plan together.
    2. Complete a vulnerability assessment which would identify whether the resident or reported perpetrator required any support.
    3. Visit the area where the alleged incidents are taking place.
    4. Speak to the reported perpetrator, with the reporting resident’s consent.
    5. Involve external agencies such as social services where appropriate.
  4. Prior to raising his initial complaint, we have not seen any evidence of the resident reporting ASB to the landlord. This Service does not suggest that ASB was not occurring, but the landlord is limited in action it is able to take in the absence of any evidence of ASB.
  5. When considering ASB reports, a landlord needs to carefully consider any supporting information or evidence as well as the reports themselves, before deciding what, if any, action it should take. In this case, as the landlord did not have any evidence to support the resident’s reports that ASB had been occurring, it was reasonable for the landlord not to have taken action against his neighbour before he raised a complaint.
  6. When ASB is reported by a resident, a landlord has a duty to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish whether ASB is occurring, and if so the nature and extent of the ASB. Following his complaint, in accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident to discuss his reports. There is no evidence that it did, which is unreasonable. The landlord failed to implement an action plan with the resident, which was a departure from its ASB policy and therefore inappropriate.
  7. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it had sent a letter to the block reminding residents of the terms of their tenancies. This was reasonable action to take. It also said that it had made “support referrals” for his neighbour to help reduce or eliminate the problems.
  8. The landlord is required to balance its obligations towards the resident under his tenancy agreement, and its ASB policy, with its obligations to support his neighbour under their tenancy. The landlord is also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the neighbour’s personal data and as such, this can impact the extent of information it can disclose to the resident about the action it had taken to address his reports.
  9. While positive that the landlord had taken steps to support his neighbour, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a vulnerability assessment with the resident. The landlord’s failure to do so appears dismissive of the resident’s lived experience and lacked empathy. This was inappropriate and a failing of the landlord.
  10. Overall, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed his reports directly with the resident, nor did it complete a vulnerability assessment between the resident raising him complaint, to when it issued it stage 2 response. There is no evidence that the landlord reasonably considered the impact that the reported ASB was having on the resident, nor did it satisfy itself that the resident was adequately supported or signposted to the appropriate agencies.
  11. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the Code.
  3. The stage 1 response was issued within 8 working days which was appropriate, and in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code.
  4. The landlord has referred to the resident escalating his complaint on 31 July 2024. However, its stage 2 response refers to communication on 11 July 2024 whereby the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. It is therefore unclear when the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord has also failed to provide evidence of either correspondence from the resident. This is a record keeping failure.
  5. As we have not had sight of the escalation request, we have not been able to determine whether the overall response issued by the landlord was fair and whether it addressed all the concerns that the resident had raised. Therefore, the landlord cannot evidence that it responded to the complaint appropriately and in accordance with the Code.
  6. While the specific delay is unclear, we know that the landlord issued its stage 2 response at least 62 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day timescale expected. In the absence of any evidence of an unavoidable delay, this was inappropriate. The landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for the delayed response.
  7. Although the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded compensation for its complaint-handling failures, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on him. The landlord failed to follow its complaint policy causing distress and frustration for the resident and prolonging the complaints process. Our remedies guidance suggests that awards between £50 and £100 are appropriate to remedy short delays. As such, we have awarded further compensation to put things right.
  8. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has reached a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £300 compensation consisting of:
      1. £30 that it offered previously, if this has not already been paid.
      2. An additional £70 in recognition of the frustration, time and trouble endured by the resident in pursing his complaint.
      3. £200 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the identified failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should engage with the resident regarding any ongoing ASB and ensure it manages the case in accordance with its ASB policy.