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

Haringey London Borough Council (202427921)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427921

Haringey London Borough Council

9 July 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 response to the resident’s

  1. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
  2. request for a management move;
  3. staff conduct;
  4. associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 14 July 1997. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 2 floor of the building. The resident has vulnerabilities. The resident has depression, anxiety and dyslexic. The Member of Parliament (MP) represented the resident throughout the complaint process.

3.             The reports of anti-social behaviour relate to the resident’s neighbour who is referred to as “Tenant A” within the report. The landlord did not provide the tenancy agreement for Tenant A. However, the tenancy terms are assumed to be the same. The Ombudsman has seen but will not share to protect Tenant A confidentiality, information about his vulnerability and health situation.

4.             On 29 May 2024, the resident emailed her MP regarding a report of racial abuse made by Tenant A. The resident said the landlord had not previously acted regarding the reports she had made though she had experienced verbal abuse for years.

5.             The housing liaison officer (HLO) spoke to the resident regarding the ASB report and requested she complete diary sheets. The HLO said she was unable to attend the agreed meeting with the MP. However, she would visit Tenant A. After the meeting the HLO would contact the resident to agree an action plan.

6.             The resident complained to the landlord on 13 June 2024. The resident said since moving into the tenancy, Tenant A had accused her and her children of being drug dealers. The situation had impacted her and her children. Her son was anxious and scared to sleep on his own and her daughter lived in fear of Tenant A. The resident went on to say she had previously acted as a witness for a previous neighbour when the court issued an injunction against Tenant A. The resident said her complaint also concerned the HLO who did not act or offer help following her ASB reports, instead had referred her daughter to her GP. The resident said her preferred outcome was for the landlord to move her to another property.

7.             The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2024. The landlord explained the HLO the resident had complained about was not available. A different HLO was managing the property. It was waiting to receive information from the police. Once it received a response, it would assess whether the threshold was met for a management transfer. The resident should continue reporting incidents to the police and it would contact residents to see if anyone were willing to act as a witness.

8.             On 25 June 2024, the MP office escalated the resident’s complaint advising the resident remained dissatisfied with its complaint response. This was because the resident believed the landlord should have already placed her into its witness protection scheme. The HLO did not act in 2019 when she did not have gas for over 10 weeks or to resolve the ASB. The resident believed the landlord and HLO had let her down.

9.             The landlord provided its final complaint response on 27 November 2024 and apologised for its delayed response. The landlord said since June 2023, it had acted following the resident’s reports of ASB. However, due to Tenant A’s personal circumstances it could only provide limited information. The landlord said it was actively engaging with Tenant A and the police and taking tenancy enforcement to protect the resident. With regard to the resident’s request for a management transfer, the assessed risk does not meet the threshold for a management move. It had considered the ASB report received on 11 November 2024 and was satisfied there was no risk of physical harm. The landlord apologised for its communication failures and recognised the frustration experienced by the resident. The landlord said with the resident’s consent it could make a referral to victim support.

10.        After the complaint process ended, the following occurred:

  1. On 28 January 2025, the case was referred to the housing decisions panel for a management move.
  2. The courts listed the possession case for Tenant A for 25 March 2025.
  3. The landlord informed the resident on 17 February 2025 the housing decision panel had refused the management transfer on welfare grounds.
  4. The Judge adjourned the case on 25 March 2025 as there was insufficient time to have a full hearing.
  5. The landlord told us on 10 June 2025 it was waiting for a further court date for the injunction and possession hearing. The case was resubmitted to the housing decisions panel on 22 May 2025 which agreed a management move on a like for like basis.

11.        The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to us. The resident said her preferred outcome was for the landlord to resolve the ASB and agree a move to another property.

Policies

12.        The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition of ASB as outlined in the ASB, crime and policing Act 2024. This is conduct:

  1. that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person or 
  2. capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person`s occupation of residential premises;
  3. capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

13.        The landlord’s ASB policy says it will assess risks, let residents know who is handling the case, work with its partners and take proportionate actions.

14.        The landlord’s housing decision panel will consider management transfers when all other problems have been exhausted. Any property offered will be offered on a like for like basis regardless of overcrowding.

15.        The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy says it will adopt a risk-based approach, support residents and provided an enhanced housing management.

16.        The landlord’s feedback policy for complaints, compliments and suggestions. It will respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days.

17.        The landlord’s compensation policy gives different categories with limits for redress payments. Generally, it will pay up to  £50 for situations assessed as low impact, up to £200 for medium impact and up to £500 for high impact.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

18.        Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused to the resident.

19.        Although, there has been a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the reports received from June 2023 (that was considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses and were within 12 months of the complaint being submitted). This is because residents should raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Any reference to events that occurred prior to March 2022 are included in this report to provide context only.

20.        The resident has also raised concerns about disrepair in the property. As this did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something we can investigate at this stage. This is because the  landlord needs to have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns. The landlord has provided temporary alternative accommodation for the works to start. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property, the resident can make a complaint to the landlord. Once the complaint process has ended, the resident can approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied for consideration

21.        The council is responsible for the allocation of permanent accommodation under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Allocations of properties are made under the Choice Based Lettings Scheme. The resident’s request for a transfer falls within that scheme. The transfer request has not been considered as part of this investigation as the resident’s rehousing application falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, the landlord can consider requests for a management transfer and the investigation will look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for such a move.

Reports of anti-social behaviour

22.        It is accepted the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. Nevertheless, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

23.        The resident made reports about verbal abuse from Tenant A to her and her children on 11 November 2022. The landlord responded to the ASB reports made by the resident by contacting its partners such as the social prescribing team in March 2022 and the police in April 2022. It  agreed to carry out a joint visit with the police to get Tenant A to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement. The landlord also agreed to carry out door knocking with the police. It was reasonable for the landlord to take an informal approach to the initial reports of ASB from the resident. A landlord should generally consider taking formal action once informal attempts have not resolved the issues as outlined in the landlord’s ASB policy.

24.        It is noted the landlord investigated a report it received from  another resident about Tenant A in June 2023. On receiving the report, it took the following steps: it obtained information from the police and sent a tenancy warning letter to Tenant A requesting he amend his behaviour

25.        The landlord’s ASB policy says before closing an ASB case it will give reasons and provide an opportunity to respond. There is no evidence it did so. In this particular case, this is a short coming and does not give rise to a service failure. This is because there is a gap to 29 May 2024 before it received further reports from the resident. In light of the gap in reports, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude the action taken had resolved the situation.

26.        The resident made a further report on 29 May 2024 about racial abuse from Tenant A. The landlord took the following steps: within 3 working days, it had conducted an initial interview with the resident and informed her of the importance of completing diary sheets. There is no evidence the resident sent the landlord the diary sheets for its review. The HLO contacted the police following the arrest of Tenant A and arranged to interview him. However, Tenant A was admitted to hospital before the interview took place. After the meeting the HLO completed a risk assessment which assessed the risk as medium. This was reasonable as the landlord demonstrated it had considered the vulnerabilities of both its residents when assessing its obligations under its anti-social behaviour policy.

27.        The landlord demonstrated it worked with other agencies to resolve the reported ASB the resident. The landlord requested disclosure from the police and received information regarding prior incident reports by Tenant A. This was reasonable. The police told the landlord it had issued community protection notices and community protection warnings to Tenant A. However, these had not been effective leading to Tenant A arrest and a fine. The police said in July 2024 it did not believe it was appropriate to progress to a criminal behaviour order and requested the rehousing of both residents as a resolution. In addition, the police suggested a joint visit which the landlord agreed to.

28.        It is not uncommon for those experiencing ASB to have an expectation for their landlords to take possession of a neighbour’s property. This was an outcome the resident wanted. The landlord does not have the authority to take possession of a property unless granted this right through the court of law. For a landlord to successfully take any formal ASB action such as injunction or eviction proceedings the landlord would be required to provide evidence proving the behaviour of the neighbour. Formal court action should be taken as a last resort as it brings the possibility of the ending of a tenancy.

29.        When the informal tenancy action did not resolve the ASB, the landlord decided to progress to formal tenancy action. The landlord completed an Equalities Impact Assessment on 10 July 2024 in line with its ASB policy. Given Tenant A vulnerabilities the landlord also considered the impact to Tenant A, if it progressed to formal possession action was progressed. The following day it decided to progress the NOSP to obtain a suspended possession order. This was reasonable as it demonstrated it balanced the impact to the resident and Tenant A’s personal circumstances.

30.        The landlord received further reports of ASB by Tenant A on 8 August 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to meet with Tenant A to have further discussions about his behaviour and to explore ways of resolving the ASB. The landlord discussed the possibility of a move to alternative accommodation, however, Tenant A did not agree to such a move.

31.        The initial court hearing took place on 25 March 2025 and the court requested a full hearing take place. The landlord has told us the court has not provided it with the hearing date as yet. The timing of the court hearing is outside the landlord’s control.

32.        Throughout the complaint process, the resident was represented by her MP. Good communication is vital to improving the landlord and tenant relationship. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to try to get direct contact with the resident on 24 June 2024 and 12 September 2024 regarding her outstanding concerns. There is no evidence the resident responded directly to the landlord.

33.        In its complaint review, the landlord recognised it failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout this case. There were delays with the landlord responding to the MP, resulting in the MP having to chase for updates. This caused uncertainty and distress to resident who remained unclear of the action the landlord was taking. Had there been better communication by the landlord, this would have given reassurance to the resident her concerns were being addressed and taken seriously.

34.        Whilst the landlord acknowledged a failing in its handling of the resident reports of ASB, it did not consider or make an offer of redress to the resident to recognise the distress and impact experienced by the resident. This was not appropriate as the resident and her family experienced distress and frustration from its communication failures.

35.        In summary, the landlord’s records show it generally acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. There were delays with communication as it did not keep the resident informed of the action it was taking to resolve the reported ASB and would have managed her expectations better. Given the nature of the ASB reports it received regarding Tenant A behaviour and the impact to the resident and her family, the landlord has evidenced it acted appropriately. The landlord took into account all the information it had regarding the vulnerability of both parties, before progressing to formal action. For those reasons, a finding of service failure has been made.

Request for a management move.

36.        The landlord is responsible for assessing whether the resident qualifies for a management transfer. The housing decision panel makes that decision. The housing decision panel will only approve a management transfer once all options for resolving the problem is exhausted and it is satisfied the resident cannot be expected to remain at the property. Any property offered under a management transfer will not worsen the living circumstances of the resident.

37.        The resident said her preferred outcome was for the landlord to move her to alternative accommodation. The landlord in its initial complaint response said it would see if the resident qualified for a move. The landlord did not provide any further information to the resident regarding her request for a move despite the MP chasing for a response. This was not reasonable as the landlord was aware of the impact to the resident and her family of the behaviour of Tenant A and the delay caused additional distress to the resident.

38.        The landlord in its final complaint response on 27 November 2024 informed the resident she did not qualify for a move as she did not meet the threshold. There is no evidence between the resident’s request for a management move in June 2024 and November 2024 the housing decisions panel considered the resident’s request for a management move. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows in September 2024, it considered it had insufficient information to meet the qualification for a move. Additional information was requested and received from the police but there is no evidence the landlord used the information to obtain the housing decision panel assessment of whether the resident’s met the threshold for consideration for a move. This was not reasonable especially as the police had requested rehousing in September 2024 for the resident after Tenant A had breached the notices it served. Also, the police advised it did not want to progress to criminal sanctions against Tenant A. The landlord’s failure to progress to the housing decisions panel continued the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

39.        The landlord has demonstrated that since the end of the complaint process,  the housing decisions panel reconsidered the resident’s request for a management move. The first time the case was presented, the housing decision panel did not agree a management move and further information was requested. The case was represented to the housing decisions panel on welfare grounds and the management transfer was agreed on 22 May 2025.The landlord took appropriate steps to put things right.

40.        Overall, there was a delay in the housing decisions panel considering the resident’s request for a move. The complaints process concluded before the resident’s request for a management transfer was presented to the housing decisions panel. The landlord has not given reasons for this. It is evident it had the resident’s reports of ASB and was aware of the impact to her and her family. The landlord also knew the tenancy actions taken to stop Tenant A behaviour had not worked. The landlord has now considered the resident’s request. For these reasons, a finding of service failure has been made regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Staff conduct

41.        The resident complained about the conduct of the HLO responsible for the management of the property and said this had been ongoing for some years. For the purpose of this report, the HLO complained about is described as ‘HLO A.’ This investigation will consider the issues raised during the complaint process. The landlord has a contractual arrangement with its staff and we cannot order it to take disciplinary action against individual members of staff. The contract between the landlord and its staff sets out steps to be taken if there is a breach of employment terms. However, we can consider whether the landlord has followed a reasonable process in investigating such concerns and taken suitable steps based on the outcome of its investigation.

42.        The resident said the HLO A inaction contributed to the length of time the ASB was unresolved. It was reasonable for the landlord in its initial complaint response to explain to the resident, the ASB investigation was carried out by a different HLO. The landlord explained the HLO post was covered by a colleague who contacted the resident to introduce herself, so the resident was aware  HLO A was not conducting the ASB investigation. The resident has not raised any concerns about the HLO that investigated the ASB.

43.        The HLO A returned to her post around October 2024. There is no evidence the HLO A contacted the resident about the ongoing ASB reports during the complaint process and before the landlord provided its final complaint response. The relationship between the resident and the HLO A appears to have broken down. The evidence provided to us does not show evidence of unprofessional behaviour or improper conduct by the HLO A during the complaint review. The resident has not provided specific examples of inappropriate behaviour by the HLO A that would warrant the landlord to take action. For those reasons a finding of no maladministration has been made.

44.        The resident has told us she remains dissatisfied with a recent telephone call made by the HLO A. The resident should inform the landlord of her concerns as we can only investigate complaints which have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s  response. Once the complaint completes the landlord’s complaint process, the resident can refer to the complaint to us for consideration.

Associated complaint

45.        The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.

46.        The resident and her MP complained to the landlord on 13 June 2024. The landlord took 6 working days to provide its complaint response on 21 June 2024. This was reasonable as it was in line with its complaint policy.

47.        The MP escalated the complaint on the resident’s behalf on 25 June 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to obtain further information from the resident and the outcome she wanted. This would give the landlord better insight into the resident’s concerns.

48.        The Complaint Handling Code informs landlords if it is unable to respond to complaints within the prescribed complaint timescales, it should agree an extension with the resident. The landlord did not do this resulting in the MP chasing the complaint response on numerous occasions: 26 July 2024, 31 July 2024, 29 August 2024. The MP also said she had contacted the landlord as part of her casework and the landlord failed to respond. In response, the landlord said it had attempted contact with the resident who had not responded. While this may be the case, this was not a sufficient reason for the landlord to have failed to respond to the resident’s complaint.

49.        The landlord contacted the resident on 12 September 2024 and said it would provide its final complaint response on 14 October 2024. The landlord did not respond to the resident complaint by the deadline it had given. This was not reasonable. The landlord’s lack of response resulted in the MP contacting us on 3 October 2024, 4 October 2024 and 16 October 2024 to get the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns. This was unacceptable and demonstrated a failure to use the complaint process to address the concerns raised by the resident.

50.        The landlord provided its final complaint response on 27 November 2024. The landlord took 111 working days. This represents an unacceptable significant delay to the resident and her family which caused inconvenience and distress. This also left the resident uncertain about the landlord’s position on the complaint.

51.        The resident asked the landlord to consider her for its witness protection scheme after giving evidence for a second time against Tenant A. The landlord in its final complaint response offered to refer the resident to victim support but did not address the resident’s specific point. The landlord missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining whether such a scheme existed and whether the resident was suitable for this. A recommendation has been made below.

52.        The landlord in its complaints review recognised the delays in its complaints handling and its communication failings. It was reasonable it apologised for this as effective complaint handling is fundamental to maintaining resident trust and satisfaction. However it did not offer any redress to the resident for the significant complaint handling delays she experienced or the impact of the ASB to her and her family in line with its compensation policy. For these failings, a finding of maladministration has been made.

Determination

53.   In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s report of ASB.

54.   In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

55. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of its staff conduct.

56. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint

Orders and recommendations

Orders

57.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:

  1. Write to the resident apologising for the service failures in its handling of her ASB reports.
  2. Pay the resident overall compensation of £400 This is broken down as;
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of her ASB reports.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her request for a management transfer.
    3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the landlord’s complaint handling.

58.        The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above

Recommendation

59.        Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord should write to the resident regarding her request to join the witness protection scheme. It should let the resident know whether she qualifies for such a scheme and provide this service with a copy of its response.