From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Havering Council (202416725)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416725

Havering Council

31 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a local council. The resident has recently had access to local mental health support services.
  2. The resident has reported ASB from children and youths on her housing estate for some time. She felt this resulted from an incident with some youths in July 2023. She challenged them for trying to undo the bolts on scaffolding erected for works on the estate. She felt things had been escalating since then.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 14 June 2024. She said that for the past 2 years, youths have abused her, made racist comments, sworn, blocked her path and graffitied her property. She said that, during this time, the landlord had not helped her with the ASB or a move.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 June 2024. It said its housing officer (HO) had attempted to call her several times without success. It had also made arrangements to visit, most recently on 17th June 2024, but she was never home, even for a planned appointment. Its ASB officer said it investigated reports from September 2023, but there was insufficient evidence to take any enforcement action. However, it had shared information with the police and requested patrols from both the Safer Neighbourhoods Team and its own Enforcement Officers. It agreed the ASB officer would contact her directly. It also gave her details to action a Community Trigger review.
  5. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 10 July 2024. She said she had requested “1000’s of times” for the ASB team to put up extra lighting and CCTV. She said they had refused her requests. She said it would be the landlord’s fault if she were harmed or burgled.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 July 2024. It said it had explored the options of installing CCTV and lighting. However, due to the location of her property, it was not deemed possible to install.
  7. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this service. She said the ASB was ongoing, and it was not helping her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained that she has lived with the ASB for 2 years. We may not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because as the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for the landlord, or the Ombudsman, to undertake an effective review of the actions taken. As the resident raised her formal complaint to the landlord on 24 June 2024, our investigation will focus on relevant matters within the 12 months prior to that date.
  2. The resident reported to this Service that more incidents of ASB have occurred since the landlord’s final stage response. She said she was unhappy that the landlord says it does not have enough evidence to do anything. We may not consider complaints that have not been through the landlord’s full complaints process. This is so it has the chance to investigate and comment before a complaint comes to this Service. She has been advised if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports since the final decision, she may make a new complaint.

ASB

  1. When considering the response to a complaint of ASB, we take account of the recommendations in the statutory guidance for frontline professionals. The guidance requires that agencies must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the lives of those subject to it. The harm, or the potential for harm to be caused to the victim, is an important factor for the landlord in determining its approach. This is because the more vulnerable can be less resilient to ASB. The guidance promotes the use of risk assessments as, while they cannot provide a definitive assessment of someone’s needs, they can help determine an appropriate response.
  2.  Not every instance of nuisance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. Our role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy adopts a victim-centred approach, while recognising that perpetrators may have vulnerabilities. As such, it aims to identify and address potential risks at the earliest possible stage. It also commits to tackling ASB by taking a collaborative, multi-agency approach, which includes implementing formal information sharing protocols. Its ASB service standards commit to contacting residents within 5 working days in cases of non-violent ASB. Contact with victims at least every 15 working days. Making safe or repairing any damage to a victim’s home within 24 hrs.
  4. The resident reported on 5 September 2023 that she was experiencing ongoing harassment from youths and children on her estate. She said there were about 30 youths gathered outside terrorizing residents. She said they had thrown wood and stones at her window, they made comments about curry smells and blocked her entrance to the block. She had concerns that they carried knives.
  5. The ASB team called the resident on 11 September 2023. This was within its policy response timescale of 5 working days. In the call, she explained about the incident with the scaffolding and advised she had been targeted since then. She said she had recorded them when they were intimidating her. Since then, when she gets into her flat, they throw stones.
  6. The landlord agreed an action plan with her in accordance with its ASB policy. It put these in writing to her the next day. The actions included requesting extra patrols from the police and its own enforcement team. It asked her to complete diary sheets and return them by 29 September 2023. It asked her to send in her recordings via WhatsApp. It advised her to call the police if she experienced any further intimidation and not to engage with the perpetrators. It suggested she carry out any further recording discretely as confronting and openly recording them was escalating matters. Its actions and advice were appropriate and in line with its policy.
  7. The landlord has provided a risk assessment, assessing the resident as at ‘medium risk’, however, the copy is undated. While this is remiss, it is not a service failing. The risk assessment shows it adopted the risk-based approach that is required. However, not knowing when it completed it makes it more difficult to assess whether this response was well timed.
  8. On the same day, the landlord emailed its partners in the police’s safer neighbourhoods’ team. It explained the issues the resident had been experiencing and asked if it could carry out extra patrols. It advised most incidents occurred around 6pm in the evening. This action was timely and compliant with the approach in its policy.
  9. The police told the landlord that the resident was known to them. She was the victim of an assault and being targeted by local children. As a result, they were increasing patrols in the area. They advised a neighbour had also reported incidents with children. They asked the landlord if it would consider providing extra lighting and CCTV.
  10. The landlord would not consider extra lighting, although it was not clear why. But it made enquiries with the relevant organisations about installing CCTV. This stalled because it could not locate who handled the street lighting from which it needed to take the power supply. Without permission for the power source, it could not progress the request. That it considered installing CCTV showed it was committed to its partnership working and taking the incidents seriously. The overall outcome was outside of its control.
  11. The resident made a further report on 13 October 2023 about children being abusive and throwing wood at her windows. She said she was concerned for her safety. She said her flat was isolated by design and neighbours could not see if anything happened to her. The caretaker had already cut back the shrubbery to improve visibility for her.
  12. The landlord’s tenancy agreement prevents its residents (including family and visitors) from any action which causes or is likely to cause nuisance to others in the locality. This includes abusive behaviour or harassment. To act on its tenancy agreement, the landlord needs to be sure perpetrators are tenants. It can only take tenancy enforcement action on those who have a tenancy. In all her reports, the resident could not identify the perpetrators or where they lived. This limited what action it could take.
  13.  On 20 November 2023, the landlord sent out a general letter to all residents on the estate. It said that children in the locality were causing nuisance, harassment and intimidating residents. It warned residents if it identified the perpetrators as being associated with their property, it would take enforcement action. That it continued to take what action it could showed it was trying to resolve the situation.
  14. The resident requested a move. Understandably, the intimidation had made her feel scared and unsafe in her home. Under the landlord’s policy, cases only qualify for a move when harassment is life–threatening or so severe or persistent that they cannot remain in their home. This needs to be supported by other agencies such as the police, Social Services or Community Mental Health Teams. Her case did not meet the landlord’s criteria for a management transfer. In response to her request to move, it referred her to the council’s Housing Needs team, which was appropriate.
  15. Following contact with Housing Needs on 20 November 2023, the landlord emailed the resident. It said her application was being assessed and if accepted it would advise what banding (level of priority) she had. It warned that unless her circumstances had changed significantly since she moved to her flat, her banding would be low. This meant it would be unlikely that she would qualify for a transfer. It urged her to register for a mutual exchange and provided the link to do so, which was reasonable. It was important to manage her expectations and advise her on all options available to move.
  16.  The police and the landlord exchanged several update emails between 20 to 27 November 2023. These confirmed neither team’s increased patrols had witnessed any ASB. The resident’s neighbour had told the police they had experienced no ASB problems in the last month. The police said they had attempted to meet with her, but she never attended. The landlord said its last report from her was about 2 men smoking outside. It had advised her it could not act on this.
  17.  On 20 November 2023, the resident made a further report of ASB. A man she said lived in the block was taking his dog in the communal garden. She said he did not clean up after his dog. He made her feel uncomfortable because he often sat looking at her flat. She called the landlord twice more about him that month. The landlord tried to return the resident’s calls but noted on 12 December 2023 attempts had been unsuccessful, and she had not responded. It booked in an unannounced visit for 18 December 2023. This action was reasonable as it was limited in what it could do without further details on the identity of the perpetrator.
  18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 December 2023. It advised that on the information available it could not take any further action and had closed the case. It invited her to contact it with any new evidence or if she identified any perpetrators. This was reasonable, it was evident it had responded to all reports and had exhausted all options available to deal with unknown perpetrators.
  19. The landlord said in this letter that it had completed impact statements. This was appropriate action and good practice. However, it has not provided copies for this period to this Service, so we cannot verify this.
  20. The tenant gave the landlord footage of a recording on 21 December 2023. This showed 3 males standing outside rolling cigarettes and smoking. The resident believed they were dealing and smoking drugs. While this was unnerving for the resident, there was very little it could be expected to do. The males were not its known tenants. Smoking in a public area is not a breach of tenancy. If they were smoking or dealing drugs, this would be a matter for the police. It appropriately shared the information with them. They identified 1 of the males. He was not, however, a tenant or connected to a tenant of the landlord.
  21. The resident reported on 26 January 2024 that she had returned home and found obscene images sprayed on her walls and window. The landlord took photographs as evidence and promptly cleaned off the graffiti. It arranged a home visit for 6 February 2024. All actions aligned with its policy. However, it did not provide any records detailing the visit or whether it went ahead, which was not helpful. Notes stated the police also responded and issued the perpetrator with a warning.
  22. The resident reported a further incident of boys smoking drugs in the communal area on 25 April 2024. She could not identify them or where they lived. The landlord confirmed with her that the communal door was secure and did not require repair. In response, it tried to call her, unsuccessfully, on 29 and 30 April 2024. This again was within its 5-day policy response time.
  23. In the resident’s complaint of 14 June 2024, she said that the landlord’s HO had failed to help her with the ASB or to move her. It disputed her claims in its response of 26 June 2024 and did not uphold her complaint. It pointed out the officer’s unsuccessful attempts to call her, and the arranged visits she had not attended, even when pre-planned. It highlighted that its ASB team had fully investigated her earlier reports but had insufficient evidence to progress. It arranged for the ASB team to contact her again to discuss her concerns. It also gave her details on the Community Trigger to have her ASB case reviewed.
  24. The landlord’s response, however, was silent about assisting her with a move. While we know it had engaged with her on the issue, it would have been helpful to have explained its position in this response.
  25. The resident reported on 25 June 2024 youths congregating outside her block, selling drugs, and preventing her access. The landlord contacted the police and asked them if it could carry out a patrol and report back. They said they patrolled the area constantly and provided a visible presence. They were aware youths smoked cannabis outside the blocks, which they were monitoring, but the challenge was with being there at the right time. They questioned any possible underlying issues. Many children played outside in this area, which it felt caused her concern. They were aware the resident made similar reports where she lived previously.
  26. The landlord continued to investigate the ASB. It initiated its information–sharing protocol with the police on 26 June 2024. Its reasoning was to see if it could assist from a housing perspective to prevent further crime. They shared 10 CAD reports from the resident since December 2023. All of these related to youths congregating, smoking drugs, abusing her and graffiti.
  27. The landlord’s records contained details of an impact assessment carried out on the block (19 July 2024). This was appropriate action but provided conflicting views on the issue. There were several no responses. A neighbour said they had experienced problems with youths throwing bricks and urinating in communal areas. They said they were scared to go out. Another advised that youths sit on the railings, but they are polite and do not cause her any issues.
  28.  In the resident’s escalation request, she complained the landlord had refused additional security measures. She said she would hold it responsible if anything happened to her, as it had refused improved lighting and installing CCTV. It explained in its response that both requests had been explored and were not deemed possible. It might have been helpful if it had revisited this issue. These measures may well have helped resolve some of the ongoing issues and eased her anxiety. It was not a service failing that it had not, as it was not obliged to do so.
  29.  Since the landlord’s final stage response, the resident has continued to report similar incidents of ASB. They have since escalated in frequency and number (up to 10 per day). The landlord continues to investigate her reports and liaise with the police. Although the situation is distressing for her, there remains insufficient evidence for it or the police to take any enforcement action. It has, however, made referrals to support services for her, which was appropriate.
  30.  Overall, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its policies in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It investigated all reports and took reasonable and proportionate action where it could. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour.