Haringey Council (202100265)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100265

Haringey Council

3 February 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Report of repairs at her property in August 2020.
2. Request to be permanently rehoused.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The tenancy commenced on 10 June 2013. The property is a one bedroom second floor flat which the resident lived in with her daughter.
The resident had a previous disrepair claim with the landlord which commenced in 2017. This claim was subject to legal proceedings and settled in January 2020, the resident’s solicitors having sent a Tomlin order to the court on 24 January 2020. As such, under Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, any matters related to this claim have not been considered as part of this investigation.

Summary of events

On 11 August 2020, the resident complained to the landlord regarding repairs to her property. The resident referred to her earlier disrepair claim. She said a number of issues had returned, she had been promised a move and was complaining because she was exhausted, stressed and emotional.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 25 August 2020. The landlord said that it was arranging for the resident’s property to be inspected in order to identify any issues with the property and to devise a course of action to remedy them. With regards to her request for a permanent move, its surveying team would need to recommend this and that any such recommendation would be reviewed by its Housing Decisions Panel to determine if such a move could be offered. The resident was currently living in a property deemed suitable for her needs. She was in Housing Needs Banding C, and due to the high demand for social rented housing across the borough almost all of its housing would be offered to applicants in Housing Needs Band A and B. The landlord also provided the resident with details of alternative housing options for her to consider, including Housing Moves and mutual exchange.
The landlord arranged for the inspection to take place on 3 September 2020. However, as the landlord had not provided the resident with 24 hours’ notice and the resident declined the appointment and provided alternative dates, 7 and 8 September 2020. On 7 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to ask that she provide her availability to give access.
On 12 December 2020, the property was inspected by two surveyors.
On 11 January 2021, the landlord provided the resident with an update following the inspection on 12 December 2020. The landlord confirmed that:
1. Mould patches on the bathroom wall caused by ineffective extraction had been identified.
2. A works order had been raised for an insulation panel to be removed by its asbestos team.
3. The remaining repairs including the replacement of the existing bathroom extractor with a condensation control type, to provide a vent in the cupboard door, overhaul the rear UPVC door, apply mould treatment to the bathroom/ cupboard and decorate would be carried out once the asbestos removal had been completed.

The landlord noted that the resident had been unable to vacate the property on 11 January 2021 for the insulation panel to be removed, as previously arranged, as she had not returned to work due to the current Covid lockdown and that current restrictions also meant that she could not go to another property for the day either.

On 1 February 2021 the asbestos contractor confirmed that they could carry out the works to remove the panel on 22 February 2021 and would only need the resident to vacate on the day. The landlord arranged a hotel stay for the resident and her daughter from 22 to 26 February 2021.
On 8 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she would not be vacating her property to go a stay in a hotel for four days as her daughter was at school and had a skin condition which made sleeping difficult, there were no cooking facilities in the hotel and that due to a medical condition she did not eat takeaways. The resident said that she required a suitable decant where her daughter would be stable and staying in a hotel would make matters worse. A week later, the resident also raised concerns with the landlord that four days were not sufficient to remedy all the issues in the property, and therefore she would not be moving out of the property.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that:
1. The removal of the asbestos insulation panel to the bathroom would be completed in one day. The decision to place the resident in temporary accommodation for 4 days was based on the advice from its surveyors and to ensure that the resident was able to remain in the temporary accommodation if the asbestos works were delayed.
2. The displacement was for a short period of time to minimise the disruption to the resident and her daughter, and, if the asbestos removal was completed in one day, she would be able to return home earlier.
3. It had made two offers of temporary accommodation that it believed were reasonable and which would allow remedial works in the resident’s home. The first offer of accommodation was a hotel stay followed by an offer of a furnished apartment to address the concerns the resident had raised about having cooking facilities.
4. It was important to ensure that the resident’s home was brought to a good standard for the health and safety of her family and that it, therefore, urged the resident to accept the offer of accommodation so that the works could be completed.
On 24 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had been decided that a further inspection would be carried out, following which its surveyors would advise whether a decant period was required for the remaining works and if so how long it should be for. It would then advise the resident of the outcome and if appropriate an offer of alternative accommodation would be made in line with the advice provided by its surveyors.
On 2 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding her concerns about ‘‘the serious health and safety conditions’’ within her property, as a result of which she had had ‘‘no option but to vacate and sleep in the car’’.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email the same day, expressing its concern that the resident and her daughter were sleeping in her car, and to advise that due to her daughter’s age and medical conditions, they were considering raising a safeguarding concern with Children’s Social Services to establish if they could assist. The referral was made the same day. The landlord also explained the steps it had taken to seek to resolve the issues in the resident’s property, that it had made reasonable requests to gain access to remove the asbestos and to appropriately decant her, but all their request had been declined. The landlord said that it was making ‘‘one final appeal’’ to the resident to encourage her to engage with the landlord’s request to allow the necessary works to be carried out, specifically to allow its surveyors to access her home to carry out an inspection.
The resident responded to the landlord on 4 March 2021. The resident said that she had only refused access where it had been unannounced and without her approval. The resident also advised that she would not be available to provide access for the appointment the landlord had booked on 10 March 2021 due to work commitments.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 24 March 2021. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged that the resident would like to be moved permanently due to mould and asbestos and concerns about her daughter’s health, but that that was not what the decant process was for.
2. Said that the resident was initially offered a decant to a hotel for four days, which its surveyors had said was adequate time for the asbestos to be removed, and then subsequently offered a furnished apartment, which she also declined because she wanted to be placed permanently in a larger property.
3. Explained that a permanent decant would only be offered if the works were likely to take longer than three months and that any such offer would be to a property with the same number of bedrooms as the original property.
4. Noted that the resident did not think that four days was sufficient time for the works to be completed and so a further inspection was booked on 10 March 2021, for which the resident denied access. The landlord advised that a further appointment had been booked for 12 April 2021 and urged the resident to keep to the appointment so that the works could begin.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 April 2021 to remind her of the appointment that day. However, the inspection did not take place.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had been in touch with the resident to apologise for not attending the appointment on 12 April 2021 and to offer the resident £10 for the missed appointment.
Following the missed appointment, the resident instructed solicitors who issued the landlord with a Notice of Claim letter on 27 April 2021. The resident has advised this service that the asbestos panel was removed in November 2021, the landlord provided a schedule of works and her solicitor is currently liaising with the landlord to ensure that the remaining works are completed.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, agreements, policies and procedures.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and outside of the property. This obligation is confirmed in the tenancy agreement, which also states that the resident must allow reasonable access to officers or agents of the landlord to enter the premises to inspect the state of repair or to carry out repairs, maintenance or improvements to the premises or to adjoining premises.
The landlord’s Decant Policy acknowledges that moving on a temporary basis involves substantial upheaval and inconvenience and can cause significant stress, and that:
1. A temporary decant into alternative accommodation will therefore only be considered:
  1. where the resident cannot remain in occupation while works are undertaken, because of the extent of work required or because of health and safety issues, and:
  2. no other temporary arrangements are possible.
2. A surveyor will assess if the works can be carried out with the tenant in occupation, or whether vacant possession is required.
3. Enforcement action will be undertaken where a tenant refuses to give vacant possession in order for works to be undertaken.
4. A permanent decant will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Considerations include:
  1. The work is likely to take more than 3 months to complete and/or it would not be reasonable for the tenant to leave their home and then move back again at a later date.
  2. The property is under occupied and the tenant wants to move permanently.
The landlord’s Housing Allocation policy confirms that the landlord manages housing allocations through the Council’s choice based lettings (CBL) system. All applicants have their housing needs assessed and are placed in a housing needs band according to their circumstances and in accordance with the reasonable preference criteria outlined in the Housing Act 1996.

Assessment

This investigation will consider what happened between the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 11 August 2020 and the landlord’s final response to that complaint in March 2021.
It is noted that after the landlord’s final response to this complaint the resident’s solicitor instigated a further disrepair claim, issuing the landlord with a Notice of Claim letter in April 2021. As this is a matter that postdates the landlord’s final complaint response it has not been included as part of this investigation.

The resident’s report of repairs to her property.

The Ombudsman expects landlords to handle repairs, for which they are responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works.
Where the works require the landlord to carry out inspections, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to advise the resident of its findings, what actions, if any, it intends to take as a result and to provide the resident with an approximate timescale as to when it envisages those actions to be completed.
On 25 August 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would arrange an inspection of her property. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to establish the extent of the works required and whether there were any risks to the health and safety of the resident.
The landlord sought to arrange an inspection on 3 September 2020, in accordance with its repairs policy. Whilst the landlord did advise the resident the day prior to the inspection, as it did not do so a full 24 hours before the appointment, so the resident declined the inspection. She offered alternative dates of 7 and 8 September 2020. The landlord responded to the resident on 7 September 2020 at which point it asked if the resident could provide her availability, it does not appear that the landlord took into account the information already provided by the resident about suitable appointment dates at this point.
There is then a three month gap in the evidence between the landlord’s email to the resident on 7 September 2020 and 12 December 2020, when the resident’s property was inspected by two surveyors. Three months is a long time for the resident to wait for an inspection to take place, there is no evidence that the landlord was proactively contacting the resident during this time nor is there any evidence of the resident chasing the landlord during that period.
The inspection on 12 December 2020 identified a number of repairs that needed to be carried out including the removal of an asbestos insulation panel, replacement of the existing bathroom extractor with a condensation control type, to provide a vent in the cupboard door, overhaul the rear UPVC door, apply mould treatment to the bathroom/ cupboard and to decorate.
Then was then a further delay of one month before the landlord advised the resident, on 11 January 2021, of the outcome of the inspection. Whilst it is acknowledged that this period covered the Christmas and New Year break and a further Covid lockdown, this was still a long time for the resident to wait to hear the outcome of the inspection. It had also been noted that whilst the landlord did advise the resident of the works it intended to carry out, with the exception of the time required to remove the asbestos insulation panel, the landlord failed to provide the resident with an approximate timescale as to when it envisaged the remainder of the works would be completed.
The removal of the asbestos panel was arranged for 11 January 2021. However, due to the resident having to work at home due to Covid restrictions, she was unable to vacate the property on that day. As a result, and given the health and safety risk related to the removal of asbestos, it was reasonable for the landlord to put all the works on hold until either the resident had returned to work or it had arranged hotel accommodation for her whilst the asbestos team removed the panel.
Following advice from the specialist asbestos team, that they could complete the works on 22 February 2021, the landlord took reasonable steps to arrange a decant and to ensure that it met with the resident and her daughter’s needs, initially offering a hotel stay and then, following further information from the resident, arranging for a furnished apartment in order to address the resident concerns.
It is appreciated that relocating temporarily would have meant a level of inconvenience and upheaval for the resident and her daughter, however it was not feasible for them to remain in the property whilst the asbestos panel was removed.
The landlord also appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about whether four days would be long enough to complete all the works by seeking to arrange a further inspection. Internal landlord emails on 24 February 2021 suggest that the additional inspection was to identify all the issues in the property as it had been three months since the previous inspection, to advise if a longer decant period was required to carry out all the repairs, or whether they could be dealt with whilst the tenant was in occupation.
The landlord arranged for the second inspection to take place on 10 March 2021. In its final response the landlord noted that the resident had denied access for the further inspection on 10 March 2021. Whilst the resident did indeed not provide access on the 10 March 2021, it is noted that she had prior to that date advised the landlord that she would be unavailable due to work commitments and had not simply denied access as implied in the landlord’s final response.
The landlord then arranged another appointment on 12 April 2021, which it urged the resident to keep but then failed to keep that appointment, for which it appropriately apologised and offered the resident £10 compensation.

The resident’s request to be permanently moved.

It is noted that in response to the resident’s request to be permanently moved, the landlord made reference to the resident’s banding and stated that her property met her needs. This is not an element of the complaint that this Service can investigate as this would falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), which considers complaints which include assessment of applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference, and the operation of choice based lettings schemes.
However, it has been noted that in its stage one response the landlord did provide the resident with a reasonably detailed explanation of what her banding was and based on that what the likelihood was of her being offered a transfer. The landlord also provided the resident with details of alternative housing options that she may wish to consider, including mutual exchange.
With regards to a permanent decant, the landlord provided the resident with an explanation that was in accordance with its decant policy, in that any decision with regards to a permanent decant would require a recommendation supporting the move from its upcoming inspection and that the works would need to likely to take longer than three months to complete.
The initial landlord’s inspection said that the resident would only need to vacate the property in order for the asbestos panel to be removed, following which she could return to the property for the remaining repairs to be completed.
To satisfy itself that it had covered all the required works and to ensure that it had correctly estimated the length of time the resident would need to be decanted for, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further inspection. However, the initial visit was declined by the resident on 10 March 2021 and then was not attended by the landlord on 12 April 2021, following which the resident instructed solicitors to instigate a new disrepair claim.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of repairs to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of her request to be permanently rehoused.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord recognised its responsibility to repair, took steps to investigate the repairs required and took reasonable steps to arrange for an appropriate decant for the resident whilst the asbestos removal took place, there were a number of failings by the landlord, the combination of which resulted in unnecessary upset, delay and inconvenience to the resident for which an overall finding of maladministration has been made.
These failings included that the landlord delayed in arranging for an inspection to be carried out which was compounded by a further delay in the landlord providing the resident with the outcome of the inspection on 12 December 2020. When it did so it did not provide the resident with any indication of how long it envisaged the remaining repairs would take once the asbestos panel had been removed and she had returned to her property. It is noted that the landlord sought to arrange a further inspection in order to address this issue. However, this in itself was not sufficient redress for its failure to provide the resident with the information in a timely manner in the first instance. With regards to the appointment of 12 April 2021, the landlord appropriately acknowledged, apologised and offered of £10 compensation for the failure to carry out the appointment.
With regards to the resident’s request for a permanent move. As no such recommendation had been made by the surveyor that attended her property on 12 December 2020 and as there was no indication that the works required to the resident’s property were likely to take more than 3 months to complete, it was reasonable and in accordance with its decant policy for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a permanent move at the time. The landlord also provided the resident with information regarding her current banding, the likelihood of her being moved and what other options may be available to her.

Orders and recommendations

Order

That within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is to apologise and pay the resident £200 for the failures identified in this report with regards to its response to her report of repairs to her property in August 2020.