Haringey London Borough Council (202123490)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123490

Haringey London Borough Council

20 December 2023

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB between May 2022 and August 2022.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the property above.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a flat within a converted Victorian house. She has lived there since 2012. Three other tenants reside in the block, all of which are male. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord’s tenancy agreements obliged its tenants, their households and their visitors to behave correctly and responsibly and to not be involved in any criminal offences or illegal activities at its properties or in the surrounding areas. They were also required to not cause any disturbance, harassment, annoyance or nuisance to anyone in their local areas.
The landlord’s Anti-social behaviour policy defines ASB as ‘‘the range of behaviours from low-level nuisance to serious harassment, which can damage the quality of life and interfere with the ability of people to use and enjoy their home or community.” The policy goes on to state that how each case is handled will vary on the specific circumstances of the victim and the perpetrator.
For nuisance cases where no corroborative evidence can be ascertained (i.e. one-on-one complaints), the policy states that the landlord may refer complainants and the alleged perpetrator to independent mediation.
The policy also describes a number of other remedies that can be taken by the landlord in such cases including:
1. Issuing a warning letter regarding ASB and/or breach of the tenancy agreement.
2. Requiring perpetrators to sign and Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) with the aim of improving their behaviour.
The landlord has information about antisocial behaviour available on its public-facing website. It states that it is important to gather evidence of such behaviour and advises as follows:
1. It will investigate the following behaviours:
  1. rowdy behaviour.
  2. verbal abuse.
  3. intimidation and harassment including stalking and hate crimes.
  4. threats or acts of violence.
  5. environmental health issues such as dumped rubbish.
2. It will not investigate the following behaviours:
  1. cooking odours.
  2. clash of lifestyles.
  3. personal differences and unfriendly looks or stares.
3. The website provides a link to a charity which can help people suffering with ASB to gather evidence.
The landlord’s information on noise nuisance, available on its website states as follows:
1. It can only investigate noise that happens often and is unreasonable.
2. It cannot investigate normal noise which is not unreasonable, such as:
  1. daily activities like doors closing, toilets flushing and walking across floors.
  2. noise from household appliances, unless at antisocial hours.
  3. doors slamming.
  4. furniture moving.
  5. intermittent banging.
3. After receiving a noise complaint the landlord aims to assess the report within 24 hours and will contact the resident within 5 working days.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy states that complaints should be made as soon as possible and within 12 months of the incident occurring.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 7 November 2021 a legal representative wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident and stated as follows:
1. The resident had experienced noise nuisance since 2012 due to anti-social behaviour from her upstairs neighbour and the lack of noise insulation between her ceiling and the floor above. The resident had spoken to the landlord about the lack of insulation but the landlord had taken no action.
2. The noise has worsened following works to the upstairs property in 2015. The resident was impacted by creaking floorboards, the toilet flushing, the sound of taps and banging.
3. The upstairs neighbour had laid laminate flooring which contributed to the noise nuisance.
4. The representative requested that the landlord confirm when it would install sound insulation between the properties.
On 14 February 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and stated as follows:
1. Her upstairs neighbour had caused problems since 2018 after police mediation had not resolved matters.
2. The landlord had referred her other neighbour (from flat C) to its ASB team in 2020 but it had concluded there was not enough evidence to take any action. She questioned why the landlord had not referred the neighbour to its ASB team sooner due to the persistent nature of the issues.
3. The landlord had suggested that a solution could be for the resident to move from the property. It did not suggest any other solutions. She stated that it was “unfair” for the emphasis to be put on her to move.
4. The landlord had advised the resident in early 2021 that it would put together an action plan to tackle the neighbour dispute. When she chased this in the summer of 2021, the landlord advised that her having the option to move was the action plan.
5. She stated that the upstairs neighbour had breached his tenancy agreement with noise nuisance and ASB, which included “verbal aggression, hostility and intimidation”.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 March 2022 and stated as follows:
1. The allegations of ASB had been logged and investigated but had been closed due to a lack of evidence. It advised that if the ASB was ongoing that the resident should report this to its ASB team and the matter could be reopened.
2. The resident had previously advised that she wished to stay in the area. The landlord asked her to confirm if she no longer wished to be considered for rehousing.
3. It apologised that the complaint response had been provided late and partly upheld the complaint on that basis.
The resident responded on 9 March 2022 and stated as follows:
1. The complaint response had not answered all of her questions. She asked what other options there were for resolving neighbour disputes.
2. She reiterated her request to know why the landlord had not referred the neighbour to its ASB team sooner.
3. Her other neighbours (at flat A and the basement flat) had also caused noise nuisance with loud music and had been verbally aggressive to her.
4. The landlord’s lack of action had impacted her over a period of time.
The following day a local Councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to request that it explain how it was going to resolve the ongoing ASB.
On 10 March 2022 the resident reported to the police that one of her neighbours was “loitering” in the stairwell when she was speaking on the telephone.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had passed her queries to the tenancy management team. It reminded her of the option to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 27 March 2022 the resident informed the police that a neighbour had been “loitering” by the communal entrance door letterbox on the previous three days. She had seen that an envelope for her in the communal letterbox had been opened which had concerned and upset her.
On 4 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The tenant in flat C had been intimidating towards her shortly after she moved into the property (in 2012). The police had not been able to take action in respect of this.
2. The behaviour of her neighbours had been affecting her for a long time and they were behaving in an anti-social manner.
3. She asked the landlord to update her on the behaviour contracts that were being developed.
On 19 April 2022 the resident advised the landlord that there was an “unpleasant odour” in the communal corridor outside of flat A. The landlord advised on 6 May 2022 that it would visit the block to investigate the reported smell. It informed the Councillor on 9 May 2022 that it had visited the block and there were “no reports of a foul smell from the neighbouring properties”. It advised however that it would schedule a visit to ascertain if there was an issue such as damp or mould causing a smell.
On 18 May 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the tenant in the basement flat had put mail in the communal letterbox over three years ago. When she had asked him not to he had been aggressive. She said he had continued to do this with the mail. She stated that she did not want the tenant of the basement flat to have his mail put in the communal letterbox.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 May 2022 and stated that the previous day she had seen an inflated balloon and dirty tissues in the recycling bin. Whilst she was by the bin, the tenant of the basement flat had been watching her. She had asked him not to watch her to which he had replied “I can come outside my flat whenever I want, you need to get a life bro, I’m gonna have you, you behaving like a 6 year old”. She stated it was an ongoing issue which needed to be addressed with behaviour contracts.
The date is not clear but prior to June 2022 the resident attended an ASB surgery run by the landlord. The landlord advised her on 1 June 2022 that it had referred the issues it had discussed with her at the surgery to its ASB officers, who would visit the block to discuss the issues.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the issue regarding mail being put in the communal mailbox was not a tenancy management issue.
On 9 June 2022 the ASB officer contacted the resident to arrange to meet with her to discuss her concerns. This meeting took place on 16 June 2022. The landlord recorded the following notes internally:
1. The majority of the meeting had been taken up by historical issues, but it had agreed to write to the other tenants to address the issues.
2. The resident stated that she felt the other tenants were “ganging up against her” and were deliberately “hanging around” communal areas to provoke and intimidate her. The landlord advised her that in order for it to take action, it needed evidence of such behaviour. It was currently one word against another, with the neighbours having made counter allegations about the resident.
3. The resident would be open to a Management Transfer but she wanted the property to have a garden, be in the same area and preferably be a newbuild. The landlord had explained that it could not guarantee this would be approved.
4. The landlord suggested internally that it liaise with the Police to see if there was anything it needed to be aware of in potentially taking tenancy enforcement action against the other tenant.
Following the meeting the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. She had been advised by the police that the tenant of the basement flat was wanted for a “serious” offence.
2. Tenants had misused the recycling bin for several years.
3. A few months previously, the tenant of the basement flat had “threatened” to report her to the landlord and the police for using the bin at night and had filmed her on his phone. This caused her alarm and distress.
4. The tenant of the basement flat had been outside of the property making noise late at night.
On 20 June 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She stated that her questions had not been answered and that no compensation had been offered for the time, resources and distress the long term neighbour dispute had caused her.
The following day, the resident informed the landlord that police had attended the property looking for the tenant of the basement flat. She stated they had attended several times looking for him. She also stated that the tenant of flat A had said “I’m off with you” to her as she had reported the smell coming from his property. She stated she did not want the tenant to communicate with her.
That same day (20 June 2022) the Councillor wrote to the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The resident had experienced aggression from both neighbours and was aware that one was “wanted” by the police. The councillor asked what options were available for a resident who was experiencing aggression and negative interactions from neighbours and asked if there was a way to involve social or welfare services.
2. The councillor asked at what point the landlord would consider moving a tenant if they continued to exhibit challenging behaviour towards neighbours.
3. The councillor noted that a suggestion had been made (it is not clear who by) for the entrance doors to flats B and C to be amended so that they did not open directly onto each other.
4. The resident could hear noise from the tenant in the flat above going about his daily business which she found disruptive, in particular the squeaking floorboards. The landlord had stated in 2018 that it would inspect the floorboards and carry out a manual noise transmission test to see whether sound insulation was be required. This was never carried out.
5. The resident had considered moving but felt this was unfair when she liked her property. She was concerned that if she started looking for new properties but did not like them, she would be seen as refusing housing and could be made homeless.
On 30 June 2022 the ASB officer shared a draft letter with the resident which he had written to all tenants of the block. He asked for her comments before the letter was finalised.
On 1 July 2022 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. It could only take action on statutory noise nuisance and it would not investigate or take action in regards to domestic noise.
2. It would raise the issue of the odour with its estates team.
3. It would need evidence to support any allegations of ASB if this continued after the letter had been sent to the tenants. If it had such evidence it could issue further warnings and a “potential notice” could be issued. It could pursue behaviour contracts but it would see how things progressed.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord sent a letter to the tenants in the block which stated as follows:
1. It clarified which items could be put in the bins.
2. Tenants could maintain the garden if they wished and anyone doing so should not be challenged.
3. Post addressed to someone no longer residing at the block should be returned to sender and not re–posted in the communal or another tenant’s letter box.
4. Due to the history of neighbour disputes the tenants should refrain from coming into contact with each other and should not interact. Tenants should refrain from “loitering” in communal areas, making aggressive or intimidating statements or gestures.
5. The filming of other tenants could be viewed as harassment and an act of provocation. If recordings were being obtained to evidence ASB, these should be shared with the police.
6. Tenants were responsible for the behaviour of their visitors.
7. Noise nuisance should be reported. It would not however take action in respect of domestic noise.
8. It asked the tenants to be mindful of odours and not to spray insect killer in communal areas.
On 6 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she had a recording from 2019 of the tenant of flat C unlocking his door and swearing before going back into his flat. The landlord noted that there did not appear to be any interaction recorded, but advised that the resident should report any further instances.
On 26 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord that police had again attended looking for the tenant of the basement flat. She stated that the tenant of flat C was continuously stepping on the creaking floor and using the bathroom taps which was causing a nuisance. She asked the landlord to send her the noise app.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord apologised that it had not responded at stage 2. It stated that it aimed to respond by 10 August 2022.
On 12 August 2022 the landlord sent the stage 2 response and stated as follows:
1. The complaint had been investigated by an ASB officer but had been closed because there was little to no evidence.
2. It had asked the resident if she wished to be rehoused and she had requested more time to consider. She had not responded further to this.
3. It had “tried everything possible” to help to resolve the matter.
4. It signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The resident responded the same day and said that the decision to move was not one which could be made in 10 days or under pressure from staff. She stated that the landlord advising that it would compile an action plan had raised her expectations that other options would be put forward.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 12 August 2022 and stated as follows:
1. Her complaint had been partially upheld at stage 1 but no compensation had been offered.
2. The landlord could have referred the resident of flat C to its ASB team earlier.
3. The noises from flat C had not been addressed since before COVID-19.
4. She requested acceptable behaviour contracts for all three of her neighbours.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 23 September 2022 the landlord conducted a telephone interview with the resident following further reports of a smell from a neighbouring property. It noted that the resident indicated that she wanted the other tenants to be moved and that she was not open to the idea of moving herself. The landlord committed to attend the block to see if it could evidence the smell reported. It also completed a risk assessment vulnerability matrix for the resident.
On 30 October 2022 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. She had been able to hear the extractor fan in flat A “for years”. The landlord had advised it would change the fan but the tenant had not permitted it to do so.
2. The tenant in flat A had not permitted upgraded smoke alarms to be installed in flat A in 2021 / 2022.
3. The tenant of flat C had previously declined to take part in mediation.
The resident spoke to this Service on 14 and 15 December 2023 to reiterate the basis of her complaint. She stated that given the behaviour of both the resident in flat C and the basement flat, the landlord should have taken tenancy enforcement action against the neighbours to evict them but it had not done so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has advised that she has experienced ASB from her neighbours since moving into the property and that this has not been resolved by the landlord. Whilst it is clear that there is a history of allegations and counter allegations, this investigation only focuses on the ASB complained about between May 2022 (when the resident raised new issues of ASB with the landlord) and August 2022 (the completion of the internal complaints procedure). The landlord’s handling of the resident’s earlier reports of ASB have previously been considered by this Service in 2021 (case reference 202004508) where no service failure was found.
The resident has previously brought the issue of the noise transference from the property above (prior to June 2016) to this Service on two occasions. The first of these was in 2016 when this Service determined that there had been no maladministration in relation to the noise reports at that time. The most recent of these was in 2021 (case reference 202004508) where the issue was ruled outside of the jurisdiction of this Service as it had previously been considered by the Housing Ombudsman in 2016 (case reference 201608166).
This Service is generally limited to investigating matters which were brought to the landlord by way of a complaint at the time or within 6 months of the issue occurring. This reflects the dispute resolution principles where landlord’s should be given the opportunity to investigate, which is made significantly more difficult when time has passed. This Service does however have the discretion to consider historical matters when appropriate to do so. This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the noise transference between 2021 and August 2022 as this has not been previously considered by this Service and this time period is directly linked to the ongoing noise the resident had complained of.

Reports of ASB between May 2022 and August 2022

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports. Rather it is to assess the landlord’s response to the reports with reference to its policies and what is fair and reasonable, given the circumstances of the case.
Although the resident submitted a complaint in February 2022, this referred to the landlord’s handling of historical reports of ASB. The resident made another report to the landlord in May 2022 that her neighbour was watching her and making comments. Although not expressly stated to be a complaint, the landlord took action following her concerns. Although the date is not clear, the landlord ran an ASB “surgery” (prior to June 2022) and subsequently acted appropriately in arranging a meeting with the resident to discuss her recent concerns. During this meeting the landlord gave appropriate advice to the resident, that in order for it to take action, the ASB complained about would need to be evidenced.
In cases of ASB, landlords have a number of powers available to them in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and enforcement action under the tenancy terms. These include injunctions and possession orders. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of anti-social behaviour, it requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support any such formal action. In this case it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not take any formal action against her neighbours without supporting evidence.
Despite the lack of evidence of ASB, the landlord took a reasonable approach and undertook the following actions:
1. It advised the resident of the option of a Management Transfer. This included it managing her expectations as to her property requests.
2. It involved the resident in the drafting of a letter to be sent to all tenants of the block about the issues she had raised.
3. It arranged to liaise with the police in respect of the resident’s concerns about the tenant in the basement flat.
Despite noting that it would liaise with the police about whether the alleged behaviour of the tenant of the basement flat was a breach of the tenancy agreement, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord discussed this with the police. In addition this Service has not seen evidence of any follow-on provided to the resident about whether it would pursue any tenancy enforcement action and the reasons for its decision. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the resident informed of the outcome of its enquiry, particularly in light of the resident being informed by the police of the nature of the alleged behaviour of the basement flat tenant.
It is noted that the resident requested that the landlord give the other tenants acceptable behaviour contracts. The landlord appropriately advised her that it needed to allow time following its letter of July 2022 before it would consider further action. This was reasonable as landlords are expected to treat residents fairly and deal with allegations of ASB impartially. Without evidence to support the resident’s reports, its decision not to use behaviour contracts was reasonable. This is something however which the landlord have consideration to in the future.
Despite the landlord taking some appropriate action, it is of concern that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment with the resident until September 2022, four months after she raised the issues in May 2022. Given the history of the resident reporting ASB, the landlord should have conducted a risk assessment sooner to ascertain whether the resident was at an increased risk from the behaviour reported and required additional support.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord signposted the resident to external support with her concerns such as the ASB support charity it references on its website. Although the landlord referred her to the police, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to a dedicated ASB support service, particularly given the ongoing nature of the behaviour she had reported and the impact it was having on her.
Although the landlord took some appropriate steps in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, it could have done more to support her. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. To acknowledge the impact of this failing on the resident and the distress caused by the landlord’s inaction, compensation of £300 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings and has made no attempt to put things right for the resident. It is noted that in recent contact with this Service, the resident outlined her ongoing concern about the behaviour of her neighbours, including her view that the landlord should take eviction action. This Service is not able to make a determination as to whether the landlord should take such action against other tenants.

Noise nuisance from the property above

The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise confirms that landlords need to be proactive about noise transference issues and consider wider issues, such as neighbourhood management options, to assist in such cases. Whilst the noise complained of may not have met the threshold for ASB, the landlord should have taken steps to investigate the noise transference.
The resident informed the landlord of the noise from the property above her in November 2021 and that that tenant had laid laminate floor which was contributing to the noise. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this report. Although the landlord is clear in its information on noise nuisance that it will not investigate household noise, it is part of the tenancy conditions that a type of underlay be used when installing laminate flooring. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to check whether the resident in the property above had complied with this tenancy condition in light of the noise reports.
The landlord’s lack of action amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to inspect the flooring of the property above the resident to ensure that it complies with the terms of the tenancy agreement. To acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s lack of action to investigate this, compensation of £200 had been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. This amount takes account of the length of time the landlord had failed to investigate the matter and the distress caused to the resident over this period.

Complaint handling

The landlord took 15 working days (14 February to 7 March 2022) to respond at stage 1. It took 39 working days (20 June to 12 August 2022) to respond at stage 2. Under the dispute resolution principles this Service expects landlords to take action when things have gone wrong. The landlord apologised for both delays but did not acknowledge the impact and frustration that these delays caused to the resident. Nor did it acknowledged that delaying the completion of the internal complaints procedure, exacerbated the complaint which stemmed from the landlord’s inaction.
In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered redress to the resident in addition to the apologies. The resident questioned why the landlord had not offered compensation within its stage 1 and this Service has seen no evidence that it explained its decision making to the resident. This was not appropriate.
It has also been noted by this Service that the landlord incorrectly signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman within its stage 2 response, when it should have signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman. This error does not however appear to have adversely impacted the resident as she referred her complaint to this Service the same day as the stage 2 response was provided. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the complaints procedure and correct signposting.
The landlord’s complaint handling failure amount to a service failure. This Service has ordered £150 compensation to acknowledge the frustration this caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB between May 2022 and August 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took some appropriate action following the resident’s reports of ASB between May 2022 and August 2022 however it did not conduct a risk assessment with her in a timely manner nor did it advise her of the external support services.
The landlord failed to investigate whether the flooring which was causing a noise nuisance to the resident, had been laid in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord responded to both the stage 1 and 2 complaint outside of its stated timeframes. Although it apologised, it did not offer any further redress or consider the impact and distress this had on the resident. The landlord provided incorrect signposting within the stage 2 response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide evince of compliance to this Service within four weeks of the date of this investigation:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay compensation of £650 directly to the resident. This is made up as follows:
3. £300 to acknowledge the impact on the resident and the distress caused by the landlord’s lack of support in responding to the reports of ASB.
4. £200 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s lack of action to investigate the noise from the property above the resident.
5. £150 to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures on the resident.
Signpost the resident to the ASB charity referred to on its website.
Investigate the flooring of the property above the resident to ensure it complies with the terms of the tenancy agreement. If it does not, the landlord must advise the resident and this Service what action it will take to rectify this.
Provide staff training on the complaints procedure and correct signposting.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord keep accurate and detailed records when it receives a report that a tenants actions could have potentially breached the tenancy conditions and any subsequent action taken and the reasons for this.