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

Havering Council (202302086)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302086

Havering Council

28 October 2024


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:
    1. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, where the resident lives with her 2 young children. The landlord is a local authority and has appointed a tenant management organisation (TMO) to manage the property on its behalf. The landlord has said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but throughout the resident’s complaint it was made aware of some vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

  1. On 5 January 2023 the resident raised her complaint. She told the landlord that she was moved to the property following a serious burglary at her previous property. She said her mental health had suffered since the incident and that she had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and severe anxiety. She told it her current living conditions were not helping. She said:
    1. The neighbour at the property above had 2 dogs that used the balcony as a toilet. Dog foul was entering the drain pipe into her garden. She had reported the issue but it had not been resolved.
    2. The noise from the property above was “unbearable” with dogs barking and fighting each other. She also mentioned the neighbours arguing amongst themselves, slamming doors and furniture every night.
    3. The situation was impacting her young daughter who was scared from noises following the burglary at the previous property. She told it how she could not “cope no more” and the situation was making them all ill. She was worried about her young children’s health and well-being and had received no support since moving to the property.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023. It said:
    1. The drains had been jetted by an external company and it had replaced a grate at the property above to stop debris going down the drain. The neighbours at the property above were told the balcony should not be used as a toilet. It explained how its tests found no blockages in the pipes but found a smell of defecation from the drains.
    2. It arranged for noise equipment to be installed which was declined by the resident. It agreed that video recordings of noise could be used and its offer of mediation was declined.
    3. The actions it would take and follow up on included issuing noise diary sheets for a period of 2 weeks. It explained if the diary sheets were not returned any noise case would be closed due to no sufficient evidence. It had raised balcony stack pipe work with the property above. It was awaiting medical letters to support a housing move for the resident and would aim to assist her with setting up a housing application and any additional support.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted it was not able to resolve the issues in an adequate timeframe. It apologised for this.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 September 2023. It said:
    1. It was satisfied the stage 1 response was detailed and comprehensively explained the actions taken up until the time of the response being sent (20 July 2023). It found no failure with its stage 1 response and explained delays were acknowledged and it had apologised. It offered a further apology.
    2. There was a failure with the actions it said it would take. It had not sent diary sheets and had asked for these to be sent. It would provide advice on further actions once it had received completed diary sheets. It had followed up on drain work and would ensure the work was completed.
    3. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint explaining it was not satisfied the actions detailed in the stage 1 response had been followed in a timely manner.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised a further complaint following a leak from the property above in April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 May 2024 explaining the steps it had taken in light of the new complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint in January 2023 and the landlord’s stage 2 response from September 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further complaints, as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service. Without evidence of the new issues exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints process, these will not be considered within this report. This report will consider the complaints that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 28 September 2023.
  2. It is important to explain that the landlord outsourced some of its management activity of the building to a TMO. When considering the tenancy agreement and the resident’s handbook, the Ombudsman has decided that for the purposes of this investigation any action or inaction of the TMO will be treated as that of the landlord.

Handling of reports of ASB

  1. The above aspect of the resident’s complaint relates to dog foul from drains entering her garden and noise nuisance both allegedly from the property above. It is important to explain that despite requests for the landlord’s ASB policy relevant at that time and details of what it did following reports of ASB, the landlord has not provided all the requested information. This has made it difficult to decide if the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy. As such, the Ombudsman will consider the available evidence and draw inferences where it is fair and reasonable to do so.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of issues with dog foul by no later than 1 November 2022. Its dog procedure assessment from the same date explains that the tenancy agreement does not permit dogs to live in a property unless the property has an individual garden. It says it does not usually enforce the tenancy condition unless it considers the dog(s) to be a nuisance. It listed a number of nuisances which included, amongst other things, fouling in communal areas and smell from a property. Here its assessment found the dogs were deemed a nuisance. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord took any further action in light of its assessment or that it explained its decided approach to the resident. This was not appropriate and not in line with what it said in its resident’s handbook about not accepting any forms of ASB.
  3. The landlord did complete some drain washes in 2023 and installed a new down pipe, replacing part of the base of a drain. It acted appropriately in monitoring if the issue was resolved following its work and completed further replacement work to resolve the drain leak issue. In addition to this, in June/July 2023, it appropriately arranged for a plumber to attend both properties at the same time to test the pipework and found no issue. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. However, the landlord noted a smell of defecation was present from the pipes in July 2023, there is no evidence to show it took any further action in relation to this. This was not appropriate.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it appropriately said it would raise further work for the pipes and in September 2023 it said it would arrange a drain inspection. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show it did this. This was not appropriate. While it recognised its failure to do this work within its stage 2 response, there is no evidence to show it has completed this work or that it has since resolved matters. This was not appropriate.
  5. Within the resident’s complaint from January 2023 she told the landlord about noise nuisance from the property above. The landlord was made aware of similar reports in April and May 2023, which included “unbearable” noise from dogs and the neighbours. It took the landlord until June 2023 to offer to install noise monitoring equipment. This timeframe of 6 months to investigate the noise nuisance concerns, in light of what the resident told it about her previous experiences and the impact of this on her and her children, was unreasonable.
  6. It is understood that the resident declined the installation of noise monitoring equipment at that time. The landlord appropriately agreed to an alternative of phone recordings and said it would provide diary sheets within its stage 1 response. However, it did not do this until its stage 2 response and failed to identify this for 2 months. This was also not appropriate.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was not appropriate. It is unclear if it opened ASB cases, explained its approach to the resident and if it provided her with support while she remained at the property. It failed to take meaningful action in light of the concerns raised to it and despite being aware of the background to the resident’s move to the property, it repeatedly missed opportunities to conduct a risk assessment especially in light of the resident’s concerns.
  8. It is understood that the neighbour at the property above disputed dog fouling in the drains and the landlord did some work to clear the drain in light of this. It is also noted that the landlord did some further work to assist the resident in moving properties. However, there is no evidence to show it completed the drain inspection mentioned within its stage 1 and 2 responses. These actions, and omissions, have been taken into account as well as the resident’s reports that the issues are ongoing, as such the landlord’s overall handling of the reports of ASB relating to dog fouling and noise nuisance amounts to maladministration.
  9. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately apologised for its failure to progress work. However, it missed a further opportunity to explain its decided approach to the reports of ASB and failed to address the overall detriment its failings would have had on the resident. As such, the Ombudsman considers financial compensation would be appropriate in these circumstances. When deciding an appropriate remedy amount, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered, and in light of the impact the landlord’s repeated failings would have had on the resident an amount of £600 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord passed the resident’s complaint from 5 January 2023 to its TMO to respond to. Its complaints policy allows for it to allocate stage 1 complaints to an appropriate officers and respond within 10 working days. However, the landlord failed to monitor whether a response was issued, this meant the resident, her MP and this Service had to contact it about its lack of response. The landlord took 7 months to issue its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023. This timeframe was not appropriate and exceeded that set within its complaints policy.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint in July 2023 but the landlord failed again to issue its response within the timeframes set within its complaints policy. The landlord took 9 months to conclude its internal complaints process. This timeframe was not appropriate especially when the resident repeatedly contacted it about her complaint and continued to raise the same issue with it. The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.
  3. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it appropriately apologised for its delay and offered a further apology in its stage 2 response. When considering the excessive timeframe for it to respond to the resident’s complaint and the impact this may have had on the resident in light of the concerns she told it about, the Ombudsman considers financial compensation would be appropriate in these circumstances. When deciding an appropriate remedy amount, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered as well as the banding for a finding of maladministration, as such an amount of £300 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances.

Determination

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

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £900 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
    1. £600 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of ASB.
    2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, arrange an inspection of the drains, an appropriately qualified specialist should conduct this. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should provide a copy of its survey report to this Service and the resident. It should confirm in writing:
    1. The work required to the property, including drains, in light of the survey, if any. It should explain what work is required, its planned approach and provide a schedule of work including timeframe for completion.
    2. The measures it will put in place to monitor if the work, if any, resolves the issues.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to contact the resident to establish any ongoing ASB issues at the property. It should then decide if it should open ASB cases and explain the steps it will follow in light of its ASB policy from 2024. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman and resident with details of its planned approach in writing.