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

Haringey London Borough Council (202338838)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338838

Haringey London Borough Council

20 March 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:
    1. The replacement of a laminate flooring to reduce noise disturbance.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her property is a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat. She has anxiety and depression.
  2. There is a long history of the resident reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise disturbances from her upstairs neighbour. Some of these reports and the landlord’s responses to them were investigated by this Service (reference 202123994). Our investigation, which concluded in October 2023, found that the landlord failed to take actions under its ASB policy or explain why it was not taking any action. We ordered it to offer to complete a vulnerability assessment, in-line with the policy. We also recommended the landlord review the case and consider actions or interventions not previously offered.
  3. Following our investigation, the landlord carried out in-person interviews with the resident and her neighbours. It concluded from its investigation that there was no evidence of ASB from an unacceptable or excessive noise. However, it agreed as part of an action plan to “explore options to replace” flooring in the property above. It also agreed to make referrals to agencies that might support the resident with her mental health and with a move to supported living accommodation. Except for the referrals, there is no evidence showing the progress the landlord was making or had made with the flooring.
  4. On 8 March 2024, the resident wrote a letter to the landlord complaining about the continued noise from above. She said the issue was causing her stress and anxiety and asked for the landlord to replace the laminate flooring. It is not clear if the landlord received this letter at that time. We sent a copy along with a request for it to investigate the complaint in mid-May 2024, following contact from the resident.
  5. In the stage 1 response, dated 6 June 2024, the landlord apologised that the action to replace the flooring was outstanding. It said it had arranged for a quote and expected the work to be completed soon.
  6. After the initial response, the resident contacted this Service for guidance. She was unsure if she had already escalated her concerns. So we asked the landlord to proceed to stage 2 in mid-September 2024. We told the landlord that the resident was still unhappy about the situation.
  7. The landlord confirmed in the stage 2 response of 11 October 2024 that the flooring was fitted in July 2024. It said that, after this, the resident made further reports of ASB from her neighbours but attempts to contact her about these had been unsuccessful. The landlord said the reports would be raised with the neighbours directly. It said that there was no further support it could offer as the resident had declined referrals to other agencies.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she is unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She advised noise disturbance continues to be a problem and is impacting her sleep. The resident wants the landlord to take further action.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The available evidence shows that the resident has been reporting ASB and excessive noise for around 10 years. There are timescales for when issues can be investigated by the Ombudsman because the quality and availability of evidence can deteriorate over time. Because of this, our previous investigation focused on events that occurred between February 2021 until January 2023. Similarly, this investigation will not look at any historical issues. We are also unable to revisit events that we have already investigated.
  2. This report focuses on the period from after our investigation, up until the stage 2 response in September 2024. Where we go beyond this time will be to provide context.

 

 

Laminate flooring

  1. In the Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report on noise, we recognised the complex issues landlords and residents face when dealing with noise complaints. Where laminate flooring was possibly the cause, we encouraged landlords to “adopt a broader, pragmatic and holistic approach to noise complaints”. We made several recommendations for landlords to adopt with the aim of preventing or reducing noise transference. This included investigating for breaches in tenancy agreement, if there was a clause excluding installing laminate flooring.
  2. The landlord’s website explains that laminate flooring is considered an alteration or improvement and requires the landlord’s consent as a condition of the tenancy agreement. Available records show that the landlord established in April 2023 that the previous tenant had fit the laminate flooring without permission. There were therefore no grounds for the landlord to enforce the neighbour to replace it.
  3. On 2 October 2023, the landlord interviewed the resident. This was before we completed our investigation and was, therefore, not an action we ordered it to take. During the meeting it agreed to several actions and shared a copy of an action plan with the resident on 22 November 2023. This included that it would consider options to replace the laminate but this was subject to the neighbour consenting. It gave a timescale for when the action was due to be completed of 30 December 2023.
  4. On 29 November 2023, the landlord met with the resident in-person. Its notes of this meeting are comprehensive. They record that the resident was advised that the landlord would cover the cost and it intended to complete this within the time set in the action plan. There was no obligation on the landlord to replace the flooring but offering to do so was in-line with the pragmatic approach we encourage.
  5. The records shows that the landlord advised the resident that the threshold to act under its ASB policy had not been met in both of its meetings. It is apparent, however, that the landlord was handling the resident’s reports under its ASB policy. This was reasonable because of the resident’s ongoing reports that the noise was excessive and deliberate. The ASB policy at the time said that where an action plan was agreed it would keep the reporter updated. The landlord also confirmed a timescale for when the flooring would be replaced, as referenced above. There is no evidence, that we have seen, of it updating her on the action. The lack of contact records and the resident’s complaint that she had received no updates means it is more likely than not that there were none given. This was clearly a departure from its policy and was inappropriate, by any standards of good customer service.
  6. In the stage 1 response from June 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay and confirmed when the flooring would be replaced. These were appropriate actions. However, it gave no reasons for its failing and there is no obvious explanation in the available records. It is reasonable to deduce that the absence of records, together with the fact that a quote for replacing the flooring had not yet been obtained, indicates the delay was caused by a lack of action by the landlord.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy said it could give explanations to resolve a complaint but the focus was on “providing the service required.” This approach is not in-line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which as of April 2024 the landlord was required to follow. We will revisit the matter of the landlord’s complaints policy later in the report. In terms of addressing the complaint, it was inappropriate of the landlord to give no explanations of what went wrong. This would have demonstrated to this Service, and the resident, that it had taken accountability for its failing. Moreover, it is an important part of learning, which is also one of the outcomes the policy said it may provide.
  8. The available evidence shows that the neighbour confirmed the laminate had been replaced with carpet on 17 July 2024. This was over 6 months after the original intended timescale. It was also around 1 month over the revised timescale stated in the initial response. There is no record, that we have seen, that the resident was made aware of any changes to the fitting date. The landlord cannot evidence that it followed its ASB policy to provide updates on agreed actions, which is a failing.
  9. According to the stage 2 response from October 2023, the resident reported a recurrence of the noise problem on 19 August. While there is no reference in the records we were sent, it is consistent with what the resident was reporting to us in her communications around the same time. It also said she made further reports the following month, which are evidenced. The landlord advised that it had attempted to follow these up with her and would continue to do so. Again, some of the attempts are evidenced. It confirmed in the final response that carpet had been fitted a few months prior.
  10. As explained above, the landlord should have updated the resident much sooner, but there is also evidence that it attempted to call her back. Even so, the landlord could have considered different ways to contact the resident other than by telephone. The landlord took no accountability for this or for the delay in replacing the floor, beyond apologising that there was one. Its final response was insufficient and made inadequate attempts to put things right for the resident.
  11. The sensitivities of this case are not lost on this Service, given the longstanding nature of the noise reports. This is complicated by the fact that the landlord did not see there was sufficient evidence to support it carrying our further actions under its ASB policy in the period concerned in this report. The Ombudsman is broadly satisfied that the landlord took some appropriate actions. These were largely aimed at supporting the resident. Replacing the carpet may have improved the situation for both parties. However, the lack of communication over a 6-month period caused the resident distress. The actions it has taken to address these are, in our view, not enough. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders it to pay compensation of £150. This amount is in-line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our guidance on remedies. It is within the range both policies state may be paid where service failure has caused distress over a long time but is not expected to be long-lasting.

Associated complaint

  1. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code to landlords. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applied from 1 April 2024 and required landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working–days. It is then expected to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working–days and 20 working–days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time was broadly in–line with the Code. Where it differed was in the requirement to send an acknowledgement. The landlord has since revised its complaint policy to meet the requirements of the new Code.
  3. We are unable to establish that the landlord received the resident’s handwritten letter dated 8 March 2024 from the available evidence. It did though receive a copy from this Service on 10 May 2024. We initially asked the landlord to respond within a shorter timescale of 5 working-days. However, we agreed to extend this to 3 June 2024. Landlords are allowed to request extensions to the statutory timescales. While true, the landlord then exceeded this without advising us or the resident. This led to us contacting the landlord for an update. Overall, it took 17 working-days to issue the stage 1 response. The time it took was disproportionate to the issue and the level of detail in the landlord’s 1–page response. It was also inappropriate by the landlord’s own timescales as it held itself to higher standards than those prescribed in the Code.
  4. Again, we are unable to say if the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. She was also unsure about this. We therefore asked the landlord to respond at stage 2 on 13 September 2024. It responded within 20 working-days, which was appropriate and in-line with relevant standards.
  5. While the landlord handled the final stage appropriately, it did not meet the required timescales with its first response or communicate about delays with the resident. This is likely to have contributed to the resident’s distress, caused by the original issues. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay compensation. We have not ordered it to take learning because it has updated its complaints policy to align with the Code. We will continue to monitor its compliance with this through our investigations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of a laminate flooring to reduce noise disturbance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is to show the Ombudsman evidence that it has completed the following actions:
    1. Apologise to the resident for delays and poor communication highlighted in this report.
    2. Pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience, comprising of:
      1. £100 for the impact of delays and poor communication.
      2. £50 for the complaint handling failings.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord implemented its ‘Vulnerable tenants and leaseholders’ policy” in July 2024, after some of the events concerned in this investigation. This was in response to a recommendation made in the Ombudsman’s special report, published a year prior. Our report highlighted themes we found through our investigations of complaints about the landlord. This included that its policy and processes around vulnerable residents had not been reviewed since the service had been brought back in-house, following a restructure. As the landlord recognises that the resident is vulnerable, we ask it to consider applying its policy in any future interactions with her.