London Borough of Havering Council (202404302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404302

Havering Council

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident had a fixed term secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 11 July 2022. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lived with one adult child and 2 children under 18. The landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the household. The resident told the landlord her children have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
The resident said her neighbour had caused (ASB) including stalking and surveillance of her and her children and making malicious allegations about her to the police and the council since 2018. The landlord confirmed it had issued a community protection warning (CPW) and a community protection notice (CPN) against the neighbour and said the terms included that the neighbour should not submit malicious allegations about the resident to the council. The resident said the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord said the resident raised a complaint on 19 September 2023. It issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 6 October 2023. It said:
1. she told it she was unable to reach her housing officer for 3 weeks. It confirmed they left on 4 September 2023 and apologised it had not told her.
2. it apologised that she felt unsupported and said it had contacted her that week. It confirmed which housing officers would be taking over her case.
3. she had declined mediation but should let it know if she changed her mind.
4. it suggested she recorded evidence of the ASB using diary sheets.
5. the resident said she had reported ASB for some time and did not feel supported. It said it would keep an up-to-date support plan.
6. the resident said it should do more to help her move. It said it understood she would prefer not to move as it would disrupt her children.
7. the resident said it had not followed through with the CPN. It said it could not share third party information about the CPN due to data protection.
8. it partially upheld her complaint as the resident was unaware her housing officer had left.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 11 October 2023. She said:
1. her neighbour was making malicious reports to the landlord and police and had caused distress to her and her children.
2. she did want to move. She said she had applied to the council’s allocation scheme but wanted the landlord to do more to find her a suitable property.
3. she confirmed she did not think mediation was appropriate.
4. the landlord was already aware of her allegations against her neighbour and questioned why it was asking her to keep further records.
5. it had never put in place a support plan.
6. the landlord had not investigated further back than 3 weeks or responded to her complaint properly.
7. she questioned why the landlord could not update her on the progress of the CPN as it was issued due to the neighbour’s actions against her.
8. she had tried to contact the landlord multiple times since July 2023, but it had not responded.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 30 April 2024. It said:
1. it apologised for the delay in its response which was due to recent changes in its complaints process.
2. its enforcement manager had met the resident and her neighbour. It had asked them to stay in contact with her to provide advice and support.
3. there was a delay in its relevant teams responding internally so that it could respond to her complaint. It said this was a service failure.
4. it had asked her housing officer to contact her regularly to ensure she had a main point of contact and support.
5. it upheld her complaint and offered £150 in good will for poor complaint handling and asked her to continue to report ASB incidents.
In referring the complaint to this Service on 1 May 2024, the resident said she had spent a long time seeking a resolution and chasing the landlord for updates. She reported that the situation had caused significant distress and affected hers and her children’s mental health. She disagreed with the amount of compensation offered. The resident said she moved house around October 2024 and is still a tenant of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 1 May 2024. She said she raised another complaint with the landlord on 24 May 2024. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. The resident also said she has reported incidents of ASB for more than 5 years.
We may not consider complaints that a resident brings to us before exhausting a landlord’s complaint procedure or that the resident did not bring to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, usually within 12 months. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects this.
Taking into account the passage of time, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from November 2022 to 30 April 2024, when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. However, we have referred to the resident’s historical reports to provide contextual background to the complaint.
The resident said hers and her children’s mental health was impacted, and they were caused significant distress. Unlike a court, we do not determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and the resident’s health. We do not determine liability and award damages. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to make a personal injury claim. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience the resident and her family experienced.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. ASB is acting in a manner that is unreasonable, persistent, disturbing or harassing, and may include actions likely to cause nuisance or annoyance.
2. it will ensure reports are recorded, acknowledged and investigated.
3. it will visit victims of ASB within 5 working days of their report.
4. it will agree an action plan and send the resident a copy within 5 working days of its visit.
5. it will keep victims informed of the progress of their complaint at least every 10 working days.
6. it may use verbal or written warnings, CPNs and mediation to resolve ASB.
7. in some cases, when harassment is so severe that the complainants are no longer safe in their home, a special transfer may be offered.
A CPN may be issued by a local authority if they are satisfied that the person they issue the notice to has engaged in unreasonable conduct, which is having a persistent detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality.
The landlord’s customer care statement says it will:
1. provide clear information on services available.
2. acknowledge letters within 5 working days and answer them within 15 working days.
3. return calls within 1 working day.
4. ensure residents leave an appointment knowing what action will be taken.
5. send written confirmation of any decisions upon request.
Our guidance on handling reports of ASB says it is best practice for landlords to:
1. clearly tell residents if their report is being handled within the good neighbourhood management or equivalent policy, or considered to be ASB.
2. have comprehensive record-keeping of reported incidents and records of follow-up actions taken.
3. complete risk assessments.
4. provide clear information about what evidence is required.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if behaviours constitute ASB. Instead, we look at whether the landlord took action in line with its ASB policy and acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case when responding to such reports.
On 9 November 2022, the resident reported her neighbour watching her and said she felt at risk. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the reported behaviour came under its ASB policy and make this clear to the resident.
That the landlord had issued a CPN to the resident’s neighbour suggests it considered their previous behaviour to be unreasonable and persistent conduct that had a detrimental effect on the resident’s quality of life. There is no evidence the landlord satisfied itself its ASB policy did not apply or that it told the resident her reports did not constitute ASB. In response to the resident’s report, the landlord did not carry out a visit or investigation in line with its ASB policy. This was not reasonable.
On 19 January 2023, the resident told the landlord she was worried it would provide no further action or support as the police had discontinued a criminal case against her neighbour. On 25 January 2023 she reported the neighbour was filming her and had made a malicious allegation that she had damaged their fence. On 27 January 2023, the landlord told the resident her neighbour was unlikely to change their behaviour despite police or its intervention. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm what her options were and how it would support her.
On 30 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord if it had an action plan. She said she felt she was having a mental breakdown and asked if the neighbour had made complaints about her recently. It would have been reasonable and in line with its ASB policy for the landlord to complete an action plan and risk assessment. That it did not was a failure of service.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord said it could not take further action against the neighbour and suggested the resident report new incidents to the police. It also said it had offered the resident a transfer and advised her to widen her search area. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the limits to the actions available to it and suggest options such as moving house to the resident.
However, the resident said she had already applied to the council’s allocation scheme in February 2023. She said she wanted to stay in the same town due to her support network. The landlord did not offer a move outside the council’s allocation scheme. It would have been helpful for the landlord to discuss the available options with the resident and create an action plan.
On 9 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord if the CPN was still in place and if the landlord would seek another once it expired. It said the CPN was still in place, and it would need grounds to reissue it once it expired. It said it considered the resident moving as the only sustainable solution.
The resident reported her neighbour watching and filming her 3 times in February and March 2023. Given that the landlord had decided the only solution was for the resident to move but properties were limited, it would have been reasonable for it to complete investigations, visits, a risk assessment, and an action plan whilst she was awaiting allocation of a property. It would also have been reasonable for it to consider other options available to it in the meantime, in line with its ASB policy. That it did not do so, or explain why it had not, was unreasonable.
The resident made no further reports of ASB until 18 July 2023 when she told the landlord her neighbour was watching her and had falsely accused her of damaging their fence and branches, resulting in the police visiting her twice that day. She asked the landlord where she stood in relation to the CPN. On 19 July 2023, the landlord told her this was not a breach of the CPN as the complaints were to the police, not the council. It was helpful for the landlord to confirm whether there was a potential breach of the CPN. However, it would have been reasonable for it to also consider whether the reported behaviour was ASB.
The same day, the resident asked if the neighbour had made complaints about her to the council and if the CPN included a requirement that the neighbour did not cause her alarm and distress. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have told the resident the terms of the CPN which related to her, so that she was able to report breaches of it. That it did not was unreasonable.
On 1 August 2023, the resident told the landlord she had been trying to contact it and asked it to call her. The landlord said she would have a new enforcement officer. The resident confirmed her neighbour’s behaviour was continuing. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s reports or confirm the evidence it required from her, which was not reasonable.
On 31 August 2023, the resident chased the landlord’s enforcement team. She asked if the CPN was still in place, and said the neighbour was making complaints about her to the council and police. She said she felt unsupported and wanted an update on the landlord’s actions, and her options. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy, informed her of its actions, her options, and any evidence it required from her. That it did not was a failure of service.
The resident chased the landlord on 22 September 2023. She asked it to call her. She said she was suffering daily due to the neighbour’s malicious allegations and had been trying to contact her housing officer by email and phone for 6 weeks. The landlord did not respond until 4 October 2023. This was not reasonable or in line with its customer care statement. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for not advising her the housing officer had left its employment in its stage 1 response.
On 5 October 2023, the resident said:
1. she had spoken to her new housing officer but they did not answer her questions.
2. she asked how the landlord was managing her neighbour’s behaviour and whether it was working with the police.
3. the landlord had not acted on breaches of the CPN.
4. her children had been diagnosed with ADHD and the issues were affecting hers and her children’s mental health.
Given the reported impact on the resident and her children, and the resident’s requests for information, it would have been in line with the landlord’s customer care statement and good practice for it to complete a risk assessment and clarify what action was being taken. That it did not was a failure of service.
In its stage 1 response on 6 October 2023, the landlord said it could not share information about the CPN due to data protection regulations. Given that it was issued in relation to the neighbour’s behaviour against the resident, it was not reasonable for it not to respond to her queries about the terms of the CPN, actions it had taken, and who the resident could contact to discuss it.
In its stage 1 response, it was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy for the landlord to confirm it had offered mediation and advised the resident to keep diary sheets as evidence, although these were not sent to the resident until 9 November 2023. The landlord also said it would keep an up-to-date support plan. However, there is no evidence it did this, which was not reasonable.
On 17 October 2023, the resident reported that the neighbour was still watching her and their CCTV viewed her pathway and door. She repeated requests for the landlord’s enforcement team to contact her and clarification on the CPN terms. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate and confirm what actions were available to it.
On 20 October 2023, the landlord told the resident the enforcement team were no longer dealing with her case. The resident queried why this was but did not receive a response. This was not reasonable.
On 14 November 2023, the landlord confirmed its housing and enforcement teams were due to meet with the police. It was appropriate for the landlord to take a multi-agency approach to the ASB. The evidence suggests other meetings between the landlord, resident and/ or police took place. However, we cannot assess these as the landlord has not provided evidence of them.
The resident told the landlord that on 1 December 2023 her neighbour damaged the fence and injured her visitor. The resident said she met with the landlord on 8 December 2023 and it agreed to reissue a CPW and CPN against the neighbour. The landlord has not provided evidence of this meeting and we therefore cannot assess it.
On 3 January 2024, the resident sent detailed diary logs of incidents with her neighbour including them watching and filming her and making malicious reports since 2018. On the same date, the landlord offered mediation and the resident agreed. The landlord referred the resident and her neighbour for mediation on 16 January 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider and offer the options available to it.
In January, February, March and April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to contact her multiple times without a response. She also asked the landlord to confirm actions and updates following meetings in which she said the landlord agreed to issue a warning letter and CPN, act on her diary sheets and arrange mediation. On multiple occasions, the landlord did not provide these updates within the timescales in its customer care statement, or at all. This was not reasonable.
The landlord did not agree an action plan, send this to the resident or inform her of the progress of her complaint every 10 working days, despite her reporting and chasing multiple times. This was not in line with its ASB policy and was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
In April 2024, the resident made 6 reports about the neighbour including that they had splashed paint on her gate and patio slabs and put bricks against her fence which damaged it. She said they were keeping her under surveillance, watching her via their window and CCTV and taking pictures of her. She said their behaviour was impacting her children, who were having panic attacks. The landlord did not substantively respond to these reports. This was not reasonable or in line with its ASB policy or customer care statement.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not respond to all elements of the resident’s escalation request, including her queries about the CPN, and whether the landlord could provide any further support for her to move.
In summary the landlord failed to:
1. provide comprehensive records of reported incidents and follow up action.
2. carry out visits or investigations in line with its ASB policy.
3. complete action plans or send these to the resident.
4. complete risk assessments.
5. provide the resident with details of a CPN that was relevant to her and the ASB she reported.
6. provide clear information about the evidence it required.
7. inform the resident of the progress of her ASB case every 10 working days.
8. respond to the resident’s requests for confirmation of decisions and information, leaving her not knowing what action would be taken.
9. respond to the resident’s enquiries, contact requests and emails without unreasonable delay and in line with its customer care statement.
10. provide clear information about who was dealing with her case and whether it was being dealt with as ASB.
11. provide the support plan offered at stage 1.
12. respond to the resident’s request for additional support to move.
The resident reported significant distress caused to her and her children. She said her children feared the neighbour and it had a significant impact on their school and their sleep. She said she lost trust in the landlord and spent a significant amount of time trying to resolve the issues.
The landlord agreed to regularly contact the resident, although she told the landlord in May 2024 that she had tried to contact it by phone and email but had not received a response. The landlord did not identify, remedy, or show learning from its failures. Despite upholding the complaint, it did not offer any compensation for its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This was not reasonable or in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. In line with our remedies’ guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We have also ordered the landlord to set out its learning from the failures identified in this report.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy was in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) and said:
1. it may accept complaints within 12 months of the incidents leading to them.
2. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
3. it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3 working days.
4. it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
5. if it extends its response timescale, it must inform the resident why and let them know when they should receive a full response.
6. responses should include an explanation of what went wrong, corrective action and redress.
The Code said that:
1. if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, it should be agreed by both parties.
2. if an extension cannot be agreed, a landlord should provide the resident with the Ombudsman’s contact details.
3. where there is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider older reports as part of the complaint background if this will help to resolve the issue.
4. a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint.
5. a landlord should provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 13 working days after it says she raised a complaint. This was 3 working days outside its complaint policy timescales.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 13 October 2023 in line with its complaints policy timescales. There was a significant delay in the landlord’s stage 2 response and the resident had to contact it multiple times to chase a response. Although it advised the resident it may respond outside its timescales due to high workload, it did not provide her with an update until 18 January 2024. This was unreasonable and outside its complaints policy and the Code.
It was helpful for the landlord to define the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 18 January 2024, and to apologise for the delay and estimate a response within 10 working days on 12 March 2024. However, it did not meet this estimate and failed to agree an extension with the resident or provide our contact details to her during the delayed stage 2 investigation. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s complaint. However, it says in its stage 1 response that the resident reported being subjected to ASB for some time and did not feel the landlord supported her. When she requested to escalate her complaint, she said she felt the landlord had not thoroughly investigated the complaint far back enough. The landlord did not address this issue at stage 2, which was not in line with the Code.
Although the complaint was about a recurring issue, the landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation including older reports in the year before the complaint was brought to it or explain to the resident why it had not done so. This was despite the landlord saying her complaint related to her reports of ASB for ‘some time.’ This was not in line with the Code. It would have been reasonable and helpful for its investigation for the landlord to clarify the period it was investigating.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did not provide an adequate explanation of what it had investigated and what had gone wrong with reference to relevant policies. It did not explain what it would do to make things right for the resident. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint and was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code.
In summary, the landlord:
1. issued a stage 1 complaint response outside its policy timescales.
2. failed to consider the background to the complaint including older reports.
3. unreasonably delayed in issuing its stage 2 response.
4. did not provide an estimated response date, agree an extension with the resident or provide the Ombudsman’s details when extending its timescales.
5. did not address all issues raised in the complaint.
6. did not provide an explanation of what went wrong and what it would do to put things right.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident and offered £150 compensation. However, it did not acknowledge all its complaint handling failures or to show learning from them in line with our dispute resolution principles. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to set out its learning from the failures identified in this report.
In line with our remedies’ guidance, we find the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, inclusive of the £150 already offered.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this investigation and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
3. pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, made up of:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord may deduct the £150 already offered if this has already been paid.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord updates its records to reflect the household’s vulnerabilities.