Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Haringey London Borough Council (202325584)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325584

Haringey London Borough Council

27 May 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s neighbour, who the resident alleged was the perpetrator of ASB, is also a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to report she was experiencing ASB from her neighbour in June 2023 (the exact date is unclear). The resident claimed she had experienced intimidating behaviour from her neighbour and her neighbour had buried a pet in the communal garden and lit a fire in the garden. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 25 August 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, and felt it had “disregarded” her concerns.
  4. The landlord met with the resident, in September 2023. Following the meeting it wrote to the resident and her neighbour on 8 September 2023. Its letter contained an ‘action plan’ about the steps it would take to investigate her reports of ASB. It said it would issue a formal warning to her neighbour, and would write to both of them setting out what behaviour it considered acceptable and what rules must be followed.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2023. It thanked the resident for attending the recent meeting and said it had “regular contact” with her in relation to the issues with her neighbour. It also provided a copy of the action plan.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint on 22 September 2023. She said she was unhappy with its handling of the ASB case and had not yet taken any of the actions outlined in the action plan.
  7. The landlord sent a warning letter to all residents in the block, including the resident and her neighbour, about the use of CCTV doorbells. It said residents needed to seek permission before installing them, and in “most cases” it would refuse due to concerns about data protection.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It gave a history of the actions it had taken on the ASB case. It explained it was taking an evidence led approach to the ASB case and explained the resident’s neighbour had made counter allegations against her. It apologised for the delay in progressing with the case after she first reported it. It said it had completed an “initial interview”, a risk assessment, and a police disclosure, in July 2023. It offered £30 in compensation for the delay in progressing with the case.
  9. The landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour on 25 October 2023. It asked the neighbour about the allegations the resident made. The resident’s neighbour denied she had committed ASB. She explained she had buried a dead pet in the communal garden and lit a fire as part of the funeral rite from her religious beliefs.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident, and her neighbour on 10 November 2023. It gave an explanation about its findings of all the allegations and counter allegations made. It explained that it had considered the evidence provided by both parties. It issued warnings to both residents about expected behaviour and reminded them of the rules of their tenancies. It explained it would continue to monitor the situation, but would not be taking further action at that time as it did not enough evidence that warranted further action.
  11. The resident contacted us on 19 January 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, and her neighbour had told “lies” about her actions. She said she felt the landlord had dismissed her concerns due to her religion.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
  2. The landlord’s website says on receiving a report of ASB it will make contact with the reporter within 5 working days.
  3. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident does not believe the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. It is outside our remit to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. and whether it was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. Our investigation has focused on the period leading up to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of August 2023. We are aware the resident raised concerns about ASB in October 2024. This was 11 months after the issue exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Based on what is reasonable in the circumstances we do not consider the report of ASB in October 2024 part of the original complaint. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s handling of the later report. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB following her report in October 2024 she may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord. We could then investigate if she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. We recommend the landlord’s meets with the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns about ASB following her report in October 2024.
  5. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, in January 2024, she raised a concern the landlord treated her differently because of her religion. While the serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, whether the landlord committed discrimination is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It is also worth noting we have seen no evidence the resident put this concern to the landlord during the complaint process. We are therefore unable to assess its response to this particular concern as it is a matter that has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  6. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further. We have considered the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. What we will not do, is make a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
  7. The landlord has not provided us with a record of the resident’s initial report of ASB from June 2023. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping. It is therefore not possible for us to corroborate the resident’s claim she first reported ASB in June 2023. However, the landlord accepted the resident’s claim about the initial report of ASB in its stage 2 complaint response. It is therefore reasonable to conclude she did report ASB at that time.
  8. Following the resident’s report of ASB in June 2023, we have seen no evidence the landlord took any action at that time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter as the landlord did not progress with the case in line with its 5 working day target. This inconvenienced the resident. She was evidently distressed at the situation with her neighbour. Its failure to progress within a reasonable timeframe may have increased the distress she experienced.
  9. We acknowledge the landlord’s claim, made in its stage 2 complaint response, that it interviewed the resident, did a risk assessment, and sought information from the police in July 2023. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence it took such action at this time. It is therefore reasonable to conclude it did not progress with the case at this time. Further supporting this conclusion is the action plan it sent in September 2023 that set out it needed to obtain information from the police.
  10. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint before the landlord took any meaningful action in the ASB case. However, once the resident raised her complaint the landlord acted with urgency and progressed with the case in line with accepted best practice. This was appropriate in the circumstances and went some way to putting right the earlier delay.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked the appropriate level of detail about the actions it had taken. Its tone was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. It failed to acknowledge the delay in progressing with the case after her initial report which lacked transparency and learning. This inconvenienced the resident.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the above errors. It acknowledged, apologised, and offered compensation for the delay. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, as set out above its claim about the actions it had taken in July 2023, based on the evidence provided for this investigation, was inaccurate. This means the compensation it offered was not fully reflective of the delay the resident experienced. This impacts on the degree to which its offer of £30 in compensation put things right for the resident.
  13. The evidence shows the landlord took the following actions in relation to the allegations the resident made against her neighbour:
    1. A warning about not lighting fires in the communal garden.
    2. Advising she would need to seek permission to bury any deceased pets in the communal garden.
    3. A warning about expected behaviours and to avoid contact with the resident.
    4. Got information from the police in relation to any reported incidents between the resident and her neighbour
  14. Considering the above actions, we consider that after an initial delay the actions the landlord took were in line accepted best practice for ASB cases, and the action plan it agreed with the resident.
  15. The landlord wrote to the resident, in November 2023, and gave a detailed explanation of all the evidence it had considered. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed transparency. It appropriately explained it needed evidence to progress with any action and reassured the resident it would continue to monitor the case. This was appropriate an evidence it sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the actions it could take, while seeking to reassure her it was taking the situation seriously.
  16. We acknowledge the resident provided an email to us, in May 2025, that the landlord sent in September 2023. The email stated the resident had provided “strong evidence”. The resident explained to us that the landlord did not take appropriate action following the evidence she provided. However, the above email also said on receipt of the evidence it would issue a warning to the resident’s neighbour. The evidence shows it did this which was appropriate and in line with the actions it said it would take.
  17. After an initial delay in progressing matters the landlord handled the ASB case appropriately and in line with its own policies. The stage 2 response failed to appropriately reflect the delay. It lacked learning about the shortcomings in its earlier response.
  18. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £150 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is in addition to the £30 it already offered.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £180 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The £30 it already offered should be deducted from this total if already paid.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord meets with the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns about ASB following her report in October 2024.