Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Haringey Council (201909345)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909345

Haringey Council

21 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports concerning a water leak from the property above.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat situated in a building comprised of similar properties. The property above the resident’s is also a leasehold property. The leaseholder of the property upstairs has sub-let this property to a tenant. For clarity, the owner of the flat above will be referred to as the ‘leaseholder of the property above’ and their tenant will be referred to as the ‘tenant’ in this report.
  2. The Ombudsman contacted both the resident and the landlord in attempts to gather information regarding the freeholder of the building. The resident informed this Service that the landlord is the freeholder of the building on 21 January 2022. We attempted to confirm this with the landlord on 12 January 2022 and 21 January 2022. However, we did not receive a response to this request. Therefore, it is this Service’s assumption, based on information provided, that the landlord is the freeholder of the building.

Summary of events

  1. On 24 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s repair report via the landlord’s repairs app. The date of the repair request is unknown from the information provided. The resident requested that a leak, coming from the overflow pipe of the property above be repaired due to the impact it was having on her property and health. The landlord advised that the property in question was a leasehold property and the resident would need to speak to the leaseholder to ask them to arrange for the leak to be repaired.
  2. The resident said she contacted the landlord in February 2021 advising the leak had not been resolved. This Service has not been provided with evidence to confirm this contact.
  3. The resident made a further request to the landlord for the leak to be repaired on 7 April 2021. She said the repair to the overflow pipe had not been completed, and the problem regarding the leak still persisted.
  4. On 9 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord’s leasehold team about the overflowing pipe from the flat above. She said it was causing a nuisance and starting to create damp and mould in her property. The leasehold team responded on the same day and said the repairs team should have been able to resolve the issue. The landlord therefore passed on a request internally for the leak to be assessed.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 April 2021. She explained that following the landlord’s advice six months prior, she had attempted to contact the tenant of the property above to resolve the leak but was unable to do so. During that period, she said that the leak had worsened and there was now constant running water causing damp in her bathroom. She said she had since raised reports on the landlord’s repairs app on four occasions informing the landlord that the tenant was not cooperating and that she could not get in contact with the leaseholder of the property above, yet she had not received a response from the landlord. She felt that her repeated requests for help had been ignored and therefore had no other option but to raise a complaint.
  6. On 28 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised that it aimed to respond by 13 May 2021. It explained that there could be a delay due to urgent operational responses because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  7. The landlord responded to the repair request on 30 April 2021 and confirmed that it had booked an appointment for 5 May 2021.
  8. On 5 May 2021 the resident reported on the landlord’s repair app that nobody had attended and that the repair remained unresolved.
  9. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 13 May 2021, it confirmed that it had no record of any of the resident’s entries on its repairs app. However, it explained that the information provided initially was correct in that the leaseholder of the property above would have to employ a plumber to trace and repair the leak in the first instance. However, as this proved unsuccessful, the landlord said that it should have raised a repair for one of its own plumbers to trace the source of the leak. The landlord apologised for its poor service and for the length of time taken to resolve the repair. It confirmed that staff training had been provided to help eliminate any future instances of underperformance, and a repair had been raised on 30 April 2021.
  10. On the same day the resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s internal process. She felt the issue had been brushed over, not investigated properly and deemed unimportant. The resident explained that she had attempted to contact the upstairs leaseholder but was unsuccessful and therefore the overflow pipe leak was not reported. She said she had been contacting the landlord in February 2021 on the repair’s app to advise that the leak was an ongoing issue. The resident was unhappy that her repair entries could not be located despite having provided the landlord with evidence, and having received responses to the messages. The resident was also dissatisfied that the plumber did not attend on 5 May 2021.
  11. The resident felt that if she had been provided with contact details for the leaseholder of the property above and if she was fully informed, it could have stopped the situation from exacerbating. She was unhappy that the landlord had stated that her complaint was sent on 28 April 2021, when it was sent on 23 April 2021. The resident expressed her frustration that she had had a puddle of water outside of her door for months. She said the drip was outside her bedroom window was frustrating and because of this she had to start leaving the bathroom window open to break the dripping. The resident stated that this has caused mould to her bathroom and her curtains, and had let heat out of the property due to the window being open continuously. The resident was unhappy with the basic response she had received back and the overall lack of communication from the landlord.
  12. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 2 July 2021. It first apologised for its late response. It then apologised as it had been looking at the repair app entries for the incorrect property and this was why it did not find the correct entries previously. The landlord explained that it had been experiencing delays and backlogs to its systems. It said that the leaseholder of the upstairs property was responsible for all internal repairs to their property and that this should have been explained to the resident. The landlord stated that it did notify the leaseholder that there was a leak coming from their property and that the leaseholder would be sending out a plumber to investigate. It acknowledged that there had been delays since the resident first reported the leak and offered £50 compensation for the delay in response, and for her time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  13. The Ombudsman contacted the resident to advise that this Service had received evidence to suggest that the leak was resolved on 21 July 2021 by contractors working on behalf of the leaseholder for the property above. The resident confirmed that the leak had been resolved but she wished to continue with the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  14. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman issued a complaint handling failure order to the landlord on 8 December 2021. This was because the landlord failed to disclose the requested complaint information in line with this Service’s requirements leading to a delay in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.
  15. The resident has asked this Service to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling process as she felt that it had not treated her complaint in a reasonable manner. She remains unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of a leak from the property above and its failure to act upon these reports, as well as its failure to not address or offer compensation to the resident for the damage caused to her windows due to damp and mould. The resident wished for this investigation to change the way the landlord deals with complaints and leaseholders in the future.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that leaseholders are responsible for maintaining the inside of the property and the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside of the building and communal areas.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents can report repairs on their online account or via telephone. The repairs policy states that when the landlord is aware of a repair, an appointment should be offered and completed within 28 days. The policy also explains that when the landlord is informed of a leak, a time will be agreed to fix it, and if necessary it will force entry to the property and charge the person causing the problem for the cost of repairing the leak.
  3. The landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure states that there are three priority categories for repairs, with each category the compensation for the level of priority in regard to the repair. It says offers of compensation for time and trouble should be in the region of £5-£10 per week. It will offer £10 for every missed appointment. The procedure also states that there should be compensation for every failure to respond to the resident of £5 per occasion.
  4. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that at both stages one and two, an acknowledgement of complaint should be received within two working days and a full response within ten working days, unless more time is needed, in which case the resident would be advised of the revised response time.
  5. This Service was not provided with a copy of the leasehold agreement between the landlord and the resident. We are aware, however, that the resident is a leaseholder due to the landlord and resident both confirming this information in correspondence.

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of her complaint, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s use of her personal data, in regard to the landlord addressing its stage two complaint response to the incorrect property. The Ombudsman has considered the worry and distress which this error caused the resident and this has been taken into account when looking at compensation, as detailed further below. However, we cannot consider whether the landlord breached data protection regulations in its handling of the resident’s personal information. This is because it is, in accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states, that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Breaches of data protection regulations fall under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It is therefore advised that the resident contacts the ICO for further information if she wishes to pursue this element of the complaint.

The resident’s reports concerning a leak from the property above.

  1. When a leaseholder reports a leak coming from another leaseholder’s property, it is reasonable to expect the leaseholders in question to liaise with each other in the first instance in order to resolve the issue. This is because leaseholders are responsible for repairs to the interior of their properties, including any leaks affecting pipes which only serve their property. Therefore, the upstairs leaseholder was responsible for fixing the leak coming from their property.
  2. However, if contact between the leaseholders proves unsuccessful in resolving this issue, the landlord, as the freeholder of the building, would be expected to intervene and contact the leaseholder itself to remind them of their responsibilities for carrying out repairs. If necessary, the landlord could force entry into the property where the leak was coming from and take action accordingly to resolve the issue. Except in the case of an emergency, the landlord would be expected to show that it had given the leaseholder reasonable opportunities to resolve the repair issue before forcing entry. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord may recharge the cost of any repairs it carries out to the leaseholder once the leak has been fixed.
  3. The resident did contact the upstairs tenant multiple times; however, she reported that the tenant became rude and, therefore, the resident could no longer communicate in this manner. Whilst at first it was reasonable for the landlord to request the resident to speak to the tenant, when it was notified that the contact was not working, the landlord should have contacted the leaseholder of the upstairs property itself so as to minimise further distress or inconvenience to the resident and facilitate a solution to the leak in accordance with its obligations as the freeholder for both properties
  4. The resident input multiple requests on the landlord’s repairs app. The app is listed in the landlord’s repairs policy as a method in which residents can report repairs. The landlord advised it was dealing with significant delays in regard to its customer service and repairs departments due to the effects of the pandemic, which was why there were delays responding to queries that the resident raised via the repair app. Whilst it is understandable and reasonable that the landlord experienced delays as a result of the pandemic, it should always make residents aware of any significant delays to the timescales for repairs given in its repairs policy, and provide an explanation for the delays. Taking into account the likely impact of the pandemic on the landlord’s service, there has been insufficient evidence provided to this Service to explain specifically why the delay was so significant and, therefore, it cannot be reasonably justified based on the evidence provided.
  5. The landlord should ensure that it takes appropriate steps to deal with leasehold properties when it is the freeholder of the building. The reasonable steps to take in this case would have been to contact the leaseholder of the property, make the tenant aware of the leak causing disruption to other properties, and advise of a timescale for the repair to be completed. If the repair was not followed up, the landlord should have contacted the leaseholder with a final warning and a notice that if, the leak was not repaired in the timescale provided, either legal action would be taken or the landlord would force entry to the property as per its obligations. If again the repair was not completed and was still affecting other leasehold properties, the landlord should have considered whether to pursue legal action against the leaseholder.
  6. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord did not attempt to follow any of the steps above in an appropriate timeframe to resolve the leak in the building. There is some evidence in the landlord’s stage two complaint response to suggest it communicated with the upstairs leaseholder, but further evidence was not provided to support this communication. However, the leak was still not remedied until 21 July 2021, nearly ten months after the first report of the leak, as per the evidence provided to this Service. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to comply with its obligations in contacting the leaseholder of the property above, when it was made aware the leaseholder’s tenant was not co-operating, caused a significant delay in the matter being resolved, which would have led to the resident experiencing avoidable distress and inconvenience. The landlord then waited a further seven weeks until it contacted the leaseholder again; this delay is not in line with the landlord’s obligations as it should have followed up with the leaseholder to ensure that the leak was repaired.
  7. The landlord did not handle the reports of the resident’s leak in line with its obligations. In future, the landlord should offer more support to leaseholders who are reporting issues in their properties which are caused by repairs needed in other properties and the landlord should contact the leaseholders responsible if communication between parties fail to reach a resolution. The landlord should also review its record keeping procedures to ensure that it is aware of which property it is dealing with at any given time.
  8. The landlord also failed to compensate the resident for matters listed in its own compensation procedure policy. The resident advised of a missed appointment on 5 May 2021. The compensation policy states that £5 compensation would be due for a missed appointment and £5 for every correspondence that went unanswered. In the evidence provided to this Service there is no suggestion that this compensation was paid to the resident. The landlord should have offered these amounts of compensation for missed appointments and unanswered correspondence in this case, in line with its compensation policy. The landlord’s failure to act in line with its policy, is an example of maladministration by the landlord and this has been considered when looking at compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s errors.
  9. In general, it is a leaseholder’s responsibility to deal with the presence of damp and mould in their own property. However, it is expected that, if a resident reports damp and mould, which they believe occurred due to a repair obligation of the landlord, the landlord should investigate to see if the damp and mould is due to any failure by the landlord to carry out repairs it was responsible for. If the landlord identifies that the damp and mould was caused by delays in the landlord fixing a leak elsewhere in the building, then the landlord should consider whether to offer compensation to the leaseholder for the damage to their property.
  10. The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her bathroom and on her curtains due to having to keep the windows open as the leak created constant dripping noises, making it hard for the resident to sleep at night. The landlord did not investigate this matter and did not address it in its complaint response, despite this being raised by the resident on two occasions.
  11. The landlord should also have provided clear information on how to make a claim under the buildings insurance policy for the building for any damage to the resident’s property owing to the damp and mould and there is no evidence that the landlord did this. Overall, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to respond to this aspect of the complaint.
  12. Whilst photos have been provided to this Service which appear to show damage to the resident’s property, we cannot rely solely upon these photos as we cannot verify the exact circumstances that these photos were taken in and it is not clear from the photographs alone what the extent of the damp and mould is or what caused it. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to confirm whether the damp and mould in the resident’s property was directly caused by delays in fixing the leak, although it is acknowledged that the leak may have caused this damage. If further investigations are carried out which show the damp and mould was caused by the leak and the delays in repairing it the landlord would be expected to review its position based on this information. If this is the case, the landlord should consider compensating the resident for the cost of repairs to the damp and mould or referring the matter to its liability insurer, if it has one.

Record keeping

  1. In the landlord’s complaint investigation, it found that it had looked for repair app entries at the incorrect property. The landlord acknowledged that this was a failure in service. This demonstrates poor record keeping which led to further delays in getting this matter resolved for the resident. This was an unreasonable delay as the landlord should be aware of the property that is reporting the repairs and if further clarification was needed, it should have acted promptly to clarify this to avoid any further delays.
  2. The landlord also addressed its stage two complaint response to the incorrect address. It was incorrectly addressed to the tenant in the property upstairs, whose behaviour the resident had complained about. This would have understandably caused worry to the resident as a tenant she had raised concerns about had access to personal information about her and her property. This error would not have given the resident confidence in the landlord’s record keeping or ability to respond accurately and fairly to her complaint.
  3. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair appointments and inspections so that it can satisfy itself that repairs have been carried out correctly, in line with its obligations. It is also essential for landlords to maintain accurate records so that complaints can be properly investigated by the landlord and by the Ombudsman. The landlord failed to comply with its obligations to maintain effective record keeping, and this in turn affected its ability to respond to the resident’s complaint meaning she received conflicting and incorrect information in response to her concerns. The landlord should offer the resident compensation in view of these errors, as detailed below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord did not meet its obligations and did not adhere to its complaint handling policy. This is because it did not respond to the resident within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and did not inform the resident in a prompt manner that there would be a delay to the stage two response.
  2. The resident did not receive her stage one complaint response until 13 May 2021; this was fourteen working days after the complaint was received by the landlord, four days outside of its ten-day commitment. Although this would have caused some inconvenience to the resident, it was not a significant delay. The stage two response came thirty-six working days after the resident requested an escalation to stage two of the landlord’s process. Whilst the landlord did update the resident on 18 June 2021, twenty-six days after requesting a review, that there would be a delay to the report, and it would be a further seven days for the complaint response, it was still not sent until three working days after that renewed response date. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have made the resident aware of the delays and explained why this was occurring. This was a service failure by the landlord as it did not comply with its obligations set out in its complaint policy that it would provide a complaint response within ten working days.
  3. The landlord apologised for delay in its response and offered a total of £30 for the delays throughout the complaints procedure. However, an apology and offer of £30 compensation was not sufficient in this case. Whilst an apology at stage one for the delay of four days would have been sufficient, this was not included in the landlord’s response. The resident also had to wait a significant time period to receive her stage two complaint response. This amount of delay, and the lack of a reasonable explanation, is not resolved with an apology and a compensation offer of £30 and the landlord should offer the resident additional compensation.
  4. The resident received conflicting information from different departments of the landlord’s organisation with the leasehold department suggesting that the landlord would carry out repairs and the repairs department saying the leak was the upstairs leaseholder’s responsibility to fix, not the landlord’s. The resident was then informed in the complaint response that she should have been made aware that leaks inside of leasehold properties were not the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord gave the resident misleading information and this had a detrimental effect on her as it caused confusion concerning who was responsible for the leak and what the final solution actually was.
  5. The landlord did not inform the resident that the repair to the property above was completed. The landlord should have made the resident aware of this to reassure her that the issue had been resolved.
  1. The resident also said the leak had caused her significant distress and inconvenience as she has had trouble sleeping due to the noise of the dripping, has been unable to hang out washing and was splashed with water when leaving her property. The landlord did not address these points in its complaint responses.
  1. The Ombudsman issued a complaint handling failure order to the landlord for not complying with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, due to the landlord not providing this service with the information requested in a timely manner. This caused a delay in The Ombudsman’s investigation which meant the resident has been waiting longer for her complaint to be resolved. This has been considered when assessing compensation, as detailed further below.
  2. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance, which is published on our website. The remedies guidance suggests that we may award compensation of between £250 and £700 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include:

a. Giving contradictory and/or incorrect information to the resident;

b. the resident having to repeatedly chase responses;

c. the resident being passed between departments; and

d. Repeated failure by the landlord to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint or failing to address all relevant aspects of the complaint.

49. In summary, the landlord gave contradictory information to the resident and passed her between departments on multiple occasions. This resulted in the resident needing to repeatedly chase for responses. The landlord failed to fully address the complaint issues which the resident had raised and to offer appropriate compensation for the errors it had made. The landlord should offer the resident overall compensation of £700 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of its errors.

Determination (decision)

50. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling the resident’s reports concerning a leak from the property above.

51. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its’ handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

52. The landlord did not handle the reports of a leak in accordance with its obligations. The landlord did act reasonably initially to inform the resident to contact the tenant of the upstairs property, but when it was aware that the upstairs leaseholder was not repairing the leak, it did not contact the leaseholder of the upstairs property promptly as would be expected. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for certain failings such as time and trouble and the delays experienced, it did not address all of the complaint points raised by the resident such as damp and mould and provided no solution for the resident for these matters. The redress of an apology and £50 compensation offered by the landlord therefore not sufficient for the service failures experienced by the resident. The landlord should pay the resident compensation as set out below, in view of this.

53. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint responses. It did not make the resident aware of the delay at stage one and at stage two it only made the resident aware days after the response deadline had passed. The complaint failures led to a delay in the matter being resolved and extended the resident’s concerns.

Orders

54. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the following compensation to the resident:

  1. £450 for failures in communication, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and for its failure to adhere to its obligations in regard to dealing with the leak. This includes the £50 already offered by the landlord which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
  2. £250 for failures in complaint handling, the distress caused by the landlord not addressing all matters raised in the complaint and the inconvenience caused by the landlord addressing its stage two complaint to the incorrect address.

55. The total amount of compensation payable to the resident is £700 and the payment should be arranged within 28 days of the Ombudsman’s decision.

56. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to address the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property. Within 28 days, the landlord should arrange for a surveyor to produce a report on the cause of the damp and mould and follow any recommendations made in that report. The landlord should carry out any repairs identified by the surveyor in line with the timescales listed in its repairs policy.

Recommendations

57. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its:

a. Staff training, to ensure all staff members are adhering to the landlord’s complaint policy.

b. Review its discretionary compensation policy to include clearer categories with definitions as to the types of complaints considered in its compensation policy. In other words, include clear definitions to categorise what priority A, B and C (as set out in its repairs policy) repairs are.

  1. Support for leaseholders. This is to ensure that the landlord has an appropriate support system in place to assist leaseholders in dealing with repairs involving other leaseholders going forward.
  2. To reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, it is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its record keeping for repairs, ensuring that detailed and accurate records are kept of any repair requests and appointments and that this information can be accessed by staff investigating complaints and can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.