London Borough of Harrow (202333489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333489

London Borough of Harrow

28 February 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:
1. Antisocial behaviour from her neighbour.
2. Drainage issues.
The investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 3-bed first-floor flat, since 1994. Her adult son and daughter live in the property with her.
The resident first reported issues with blocked pipework and drainage issues to the landlord in 2000. She reported the issue several times between 2000 and 2019 and said she considered the issues were being caused by her upstairs neighbour.
The resident first reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her upstairs neighbour in March 2020. She said her neighbour was causing a noise nuisance and was “harassing” her.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 January 2022 (Complaint 1). She said:
1. Her upstairs neighbour was causing too much noise.
2. She could hear children running and jumping into the early hours of the morning. She could also hear noise from her neighbour’s tap.
3. Her neighbour used “too much” water and this was causing the resident’s property to be “sticky and wet”.
4. Her neighbour was causing blockages in the drainage.
5. Steam was coming out of her sink plugholes and this was making her property damp.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this complaint.
On 20 December 2022 the resident made a further stage 1 complaint (Complaint 2). She said:
1. Her neighbour was causing noise nuisance by “stomping”. This had also caused cracks in her ceiling and a leak.
2. Her neighbour had taken in a lodger.
3. She felt the landlord was investigating her and not her neighbour.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 2 on 9 January 2023. It said:
1. The neighbour had denied taking in lodgers and had agreed to address the noise from her children.
2. She should report the leak to its repairs team.
On 30 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and complained that her neighbour was “hiding” someone in the property. She also said her neighbour had been cooking for “2 whole days” and that this was causing her property to be humid. The landlord logged this as a new stage 1 complaint (Complaint 3).
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 on 23 February 2023. It said:
1. It wanted to inspect the blocked drains the resident had reported. It asked her to confirm her availability for an appointment.
2. Her complaint about her neighbour remained “unsubstantiated”.
3. Her neighbour denied causing a noise nuisance but it had made her aware of “issues of noise transference in the block”.
It is not clear when the resident requested escalation of her complaint. However, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2023. It said:
1. It had inspected both the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property.
2. There was no evidence of water backing up in either property.
3. It would not be possible for blockages in her neighbour’s property to cause water to back up in the resident’s property.
4. She should report any further issues to the repairs team who could investigate the drains on the ground floor.
5. Her neighbour had denied causing a noise nuisance. The property was carpeted throughout. There was likely to be a “degree of sound transference between flats”. If she could use a sound recording application to evidence her reports it could investigate further.
The resident remained unhappy and said she continued to experience ASB and water backing up in her property. She escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman and the matter became one we could investigate in November 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s repair policy describes blocked drains, sinks, baths and toilets as urgent repairs. It states it will complete urgent repairs within 1 to 5 working days.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it does not consider “clash of lifestyles”, children playing, use of normal household equipment, or noise transference to be ASB.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has been reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour since 2020. We also accept that she has been reporting issues with her drainage since 2000. However, she did not make a formal complaint until January 2022.
This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from December 2020 onwards. This is when records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint began. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.

Antisocial behaviour from her neighbour.

In December 2020 the resident reported that her neighbour had been spitting on her doorstep and was filming her.
Such reports would meet the definition of ASB within the landlord’s policy. We would therefore reasonably expect the landlord to have logged an ASB case and to investigate the resident’s report in accordance with its policy. We have not seen evidence that it did so. This was a failing to adhere to its policy.
Statutory guidance which accompanies the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 states landlords should assess the risk of harm, and any vulnerabilities, when it receives an ASB complaint. We would therefore have reasonably expected the landlord to complete a risk assessment in this case. That it did not was a failing.
We also note that the landlord did not agree an action plan with the resident. This would have allowed it to explain what evidence it required and what actions it may take. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations as the actions available to it may have not met her preferred resolution.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that much of the behaviour subsequently reported by the resident would not meet the definition of ASB outlined in the landlord’s policy. The policy specifically states it does not consider noise transference, use of normal household equipment, and children playing to be ASB. We would however have expected the landlord to clearly explain to the resident which of the reported behaviours were and were not ASB. That it did not do so was a failure to manage her expectations.
In early February 2021 the resident reported noise from her neighbour. She described noise from slamming of cupboard doors and children running around.
The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour to discuss the reports. Her neighbour denied the reports. That it contacted her neighbour to discuss the reports was reasonable and proportionate.
In May 2021 the resident’s daughter asked the landlord to visit to discuss the ASB she was experiencing. The landlord agreed to visit on 18 May 2021. It is not clear from the records whether this appointment went ahead and if so, what was discussed. The landlord should reasonably have kept a record of any meeting and the discussion that took place. That this has not been provided to us, may be an indication of record keeping issues.
The evidence does not show any reports of ASB or noise nuisance from the resident between May 2021 and March 2022.
In March 2022 the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour. It noted that the property was carpeted throughout and that she had 2 children with additional needs. That it carried out this inspection was reasonable and proportionate. It is not however clear if it did so due to further reports from the resident which have not been recorded. This may be a further indication of record keeping issues.
In July 2022 the resident reported that she continued to experience noise nuisance from her neighbour and that the landlord was ignoring her. The landlord replied and said it was sorry if she had felt ignored. It asked her to complete diary sheets for a period of 2 weeks and return them.
This was a reasonable and proportionate response. We acknowledge that to take any action the landlord would need to evidence the resident’s reports. We have not seen evidence that the resident completed and returned the diary sheets.
The resident reported further noise nuisance in October 2022. She said her neighbour was “banging…stamping feet…and slamming doors”. She also stated that her neighbour was being “racist” towards her.
The landlord replied on the same day and said it would like to meet her to discuss her reports. As the resident did not reply it asked her again a week later. We have not seen evidence that the resident responded. Considering the resident’s report that she was experiencing racial abuse, we would have reasonably expected the landlord to investigate this further. It would have also been appropriate to signpost the resident to the police given that such action would amount to a hate crime. That it did not was inappropriate.
In December 2022 the resident reported further noise from her neighbour who she said was jumping, stomping, and banging. We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged this report. This was unreasonable.
In January 2023 the landlord completed a ‘vulnerable tenants form’. This stated that it had made enquiries with the community mental health team but the resident was not known to their service. That it made these enquiries was reasonable. However, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed any concerns it had about the resident’s mental health with her.
The resident continued to report banging, doors slamming, and the sound of running from her neighbour’s property throughout February 2023. She stated that her neighbour would follow her from room to room making noise and that the noise went on into the early hours of the morning.
The landlord visited the resident and her neighbour in March 2023. It explained to the resident that her neighbour had disabled children, that her property was carpeted, and that she had denied the resident’s reports. It explained to the resident that sound transference between properties was likely and advised her to record any further noise. As it had not substantiated the resident’s reports, this was a reasonable request.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the importance of landlord’s developing a distinct procedure for dealing with household noise. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider the development of such a household noise policy.
The Spotlight report identified that, as in this case, noise transference is a key issue and encouraged landlords to consider prevention through the installation of sound insulation. This said, the landlord is not contractually obliged to provide sound insulation and we recognise that the cost of such works may be prohibitive.
The Ombudsman notes that the failing in this case was not that the landlord could or should have acted against the resident’s neighbour. Rather, it was that it failed to follow industry good practice and effectively manage the resident’s expectations. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Drainage issues.

In December 2020 the resident stated that water was backing up in her property. She said her neighbour had caused this.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this report. While we acknowledge that the resident should have reported the matter to the landlord’s repairs team, we would reasonably have expected it to acknowledge and act on the report. That it did not was unreasonable.
There is no evidence of further reports for approximately 1 year. Then, in January 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour was using “too much” water and that this was causing steam to come out of her plugholes making her property damp. The landlord raised a repair 11 days later to inspect both the resident and her neighbour’s properties for drainage issues. The records show it completed the inspection around 2 weeks later.
That the landlord carried out an inspection was reasonable. We have not however seen evidence of the outcome of the inspection. As it has not provided evidence detailing the findings of its inspection, we cannot determine that any action it took in response was reasonable.
In February 2022 the landlord raised a repair to carry out a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property. It recorded that it completed this on 16 March 2022. Again it has not provided us with any reports detailing the outcome of the inspection. As a result we cannot determine that any actions (or lack of) it took in response were reasonable.
Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.
The landlord visited the resident in March 2022 and noted that there was no evidence of water backing up. That it inspected several times within a short period demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident did not make any further reports regarding drainage issues until the landlord visited her in December 2022. She again said her neighbour was causing blockages in the pipework. The landlord advised her to report this to its repairs team.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that landlords have specific teams which respond to repairs. It is evident that the resident contacted staff members outside of the repairs team to report repair issues. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask her to report issues to the relevant team to ensure it was able to log them and respond to them appropriately.
The resident’s continued reports to other staff members would have understandably impacted the service the landlord could provide to her. That the resident did not report repair issues to the correct team despite several requests was outside the landlord’s control.
Over the following weeks the resident made several reports that the pipes were “blocked”, there was a backflow of water into her property, and that her property was “humid”. She said her neighbour had caused these issues by using her washing machine too much and cooking “day and night”. We note that she did not make these reports to the repairs team.
In response to the reports the landlord raised a repair to “investigate damp and mould” in the resident’s property. It cancelled this a month later. It is not clear why the landlord cancelled the investigations when there was no indication the issue had been resolved. We would reasonably have expected it to record why it cancelled the inspection. That it did not was a further failing in its record keeping.
In February 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm her availability for it to inspect the drainage issue. The records show it carried out the inspection on 10 March 2023. Notes from the inspection state there was no evidence of water backing up in either the resident’s property or her neighbour’s. The notes show it explained to the resident that it would “not be possible” due to the construction of the building for any blockages to be caused by her upstairs neighbour. It asked her to report any future issues to its repair team when they occurred so it could inspect the drainage on the ground floor.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was reasonable. Had the landlord been given the opportunity to attend when the backflow was occurring this may have assisted it in finding the source of the problem.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that following the end of its internal complaint process the resident has continued to report a back flow of water in the property. It states it raised several inspections but that these were cancelled due to no response from the resident. It also said it had raised CCTV inspections for the external drains to check for leaks and blockages. We do not know the outcome of these surveys.
Overall, the information provided by the landlord in relation to the drainage issues has been inadequate. It has shown that it inspected the property and discussed the issues with the resident several times which demonstrates that it was taking her concerns seriously. We also acknowledge that the landlord’s attempts to identify and resolve the reported drainage issues were hampered by the resident not reporting the issues to its repairs team when they were occurring. However, as the landlord has not evidenced the outcome of its inspections, this Service cannot determine that it responded reasonably. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the drainage issues.

Complaint handling.

The landlord sent the resident emails acknowledging receipt of stage 1 complaints in January 2020 and December 2021. It has not provided any further information relating to these complaints.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the complaint acknowledgement must set out the issues of complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. As the landlord failed to provide this information in these acknowledgements it is unclear whether they related to the issues considered by this report.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided a response to these complaints. It is not clear whether it failed to respond or it has failed to provide evidence of this. Either way, this was unreasonable.
The resident asked the landlord to raise Complaint 1 in January 2022. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this complaint. This was a further failing to adhere to its own complaints policy and the Code. This delayed the resident’s access to this Service and was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 2 outlined the issues she had raised. It said her neighbour had denied the reports and advised the resident to report concerns about a leak to its repairs team.
This Service accepts that it is the resident’s responsibility to report any repair issues. We would however have reasonably expected the landlord to forward the reports to its repairs team. This would not have been onerous and may have helped to resolve the issue of complaint which is the purpose of the complaints process.
The Ombudsman notes that the stage 1 response to Complaint 2 was written by the same housing officer who had investigated the resident’s ASB concerns.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not specify who will carry out stage 1 complaint investigations. The Code does not explicitly state that an officer involved in the substantive issue of complaint cannot investigate the complaint. It does however state that landlords must investigate complaints impartially. This Service considers that the resident could reasonably view an officer investigating their own actions not to be impartial. That the landlord did not allocate the case to someone not previously involved with the issue was a missed opportunity to demonstrate that it was carrying out an independent investigation.
Less than 3 weeks after the landlord’s response to Complaint 2, the resident raised further concerns regarding her neighbour. She again stated she believed her neighbour had someone living with her and said that her neighbour’s cooking was impacting her own property. As the issues raised were the same as those raised in Complaint 2 the landlord should reasonably have escalated Complaint 2 to stage 2 of its complaint process. By raising a new stage 1 complaint it further delayed the resident’s access to this Service. This was unreasonable.
It is noted that the officer who had responded to Complaint 2 also provided the stage 1 response to Complaint 3. Again, as the officer had been involved in the substantive issue, this could reasonably have given the impression that the investigation was not impartial and independent.
It is not clear from the evidence when the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its process. As we have not seen the resident’s escalation request, we cannot determine whether the landlord responded within the timescales outlined in the Code and its policy. Nor can we determine whether its response addressed all the issues raised by the resident. The landlord should ensure that it is keeping a record of this information not just to provide to the Ombudsman, but so it can assess and review its own complaint handling and the timeliness of its responses.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to Complaint 2 stated that it had found no evidence to substantiate the issues reported by the resident. It clearly outlined the findings of its investigation and explained what the resident should do if the issues arose again. This was reasonable.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and failed to meet the requirements of the Code. The landlord:
1. Failed to respond to the resident’s complaints in January 2020 and December 2021.
2. Did not acknowledge or respond to Complaint 1.
3. Missed an opportunity to have Complaint 2 and Complaint 3 investigated by an officer not previously involved in the handling of the substantive issue.
4. Raised a new stage 1 complaint when it should reasonably have escalated Complaint 2 to stage 2.
5. Failed to provide evidence of the resident’s request to escalate Complaint 3 to stage 2 of its process.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour from the resident’s neighbour.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of drainage issues.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 comprising:
  1. £150 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £150 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its complaint handling.
3. Consider offering to refer the resident and her neighbour for mediation in relation to the ongoing noise nuisance and ASB reports.
4. If it has not already done so within the past 3 months arrange a mutually convenient time to carry out a further inspection of the drainage system in the resident’s property. It should also demonstrate that it has carried out the CCTV surveys of the external drainage system as stated in its communications with this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise. It should in particular consider developing a separate policy on household noise.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions regarding the recommendations within 6 weeks of the date of this report.