Haringey London Borough Council (202116739)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116739

Haringey Council

28 October 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 response to the resident’s reports about:
   1. The major works at her property.
   2. Her decant from the property whilst works progressed.

Background

2. The resident is a wheelchair user and has lived in a one-bedroom ground floor flat within supported housing, under a secure tenancy with the landlord, since 2008. The landlord is aware that the resident is also partially sighted and doubly incontinent.
3. The resident was decanted to another flat in the same block from March to November 2020 to enable refurbishment of her kitchen and bathroom. She complained on 17 December 2020 that there were no blinds so the decant property lacked privacy, she had no internet for ten days, there were problems with the flooring which restricted her mobility, and the removal staff were unhelpful. Once the resident returned to her property she reported that work was not finished, items were missing, the kitchen and bathroom sinks were wrongly situated, and the property required a deep clean.
4. The landlord’s complaint response of 12 January 2021 did not uphold the complaint as the resident had approved the specification of works before and after. It said the worktop height could not be lowered due to the electrical appliances such as the washing machine, and that it was at the same height it had been in the previous kitchen. The landlord also said it would arrange a deep clean, but it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure valuables were stored safely away, and any losses should be reported to the police or ‘wellbeing hub coordinator.’ The issue of the decant property (DP) not being ready was partly upheld as the move did not go smoothly and lessons had been learned. The resident was offered £752 disturbance payment as per the landlord’s policy and said that if the resident provided receipts it would consider further compensation.
5. The kitchen draining board was reversed, but the occupational therapist (OT) had confirmed the taps would not be moved as they were ‘completed to the required standard.’ In April 2021, the resident said she was still waiting for the bathroom basin and the kitchen sink was unusable. She reiterated the previous concerns and raised new issues regarding the replacement of her front door, and an incorrect rent charged for the decant property; she also said the sum offered for disturbance was too low.
6. The landlord replied on 14 June 2021 with a final complaint response – it apologised for the delay in responding and explained again that the disturbance payment was standard but that it would consider any additional costs incurred. There had been a visit by a director and the OT in November 2020 who agreed further works, including to the sinks which were adjusted in January and February 2021. The contractor would contact the resident to arrange a further inspection. The landlord offered £250 compensation, being £50 time and trouble and £200 for poor service and inconvenience. The landlord considered that the disturbance payment would include the costs of any deep cleaning required. The deep cleaning had been offered but declined by the resident as she felt it should be paid by the contractors.
7. In April 2022, the resident said that work still had to be redone in the kitchen and bathroom, she was still waiting for a fire door, had been charged rent for the DP after she vacated, and wanted the work finished and payment for new flooring in the bedroom. The landlord said it investigated whether the removal company or contractors took items and concluded they had not; it also said that the property was inspected after the works and was left in good condition.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident raised the issue of a fire door and rent charged for the decant property beyond her vacation date but did so after the landlord’s stage one response had been issued. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to follow up these issues with the resident, but they do not form part of this investigation, which responds to issues the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate through the internal complaints process.
9. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42 (a) which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Major works

10. The landlord’s repairs handbook says at page 7 that the landlord will use dust sheets and tidy up after any work. Page 15 says that the tenant is responsible for maintaining kitchen units, including sink and taps and repairing and renewing floor coverings but the landlord will repair or replace kitchen units and baths and basins due to wear and tear.
11. In this instance, the landlord has said that the works were signed off as complete in November 2020, but also an inspection was conducted in April which highlighted further repairs which were due. This indicates that despite the work being signed off, there were legitimate concerns, and it is reasonable that some issues will only become apparent once the resident is living in the property and using the kitchen and bathroom on a daily basis. The Occupational Therapist (OT) had confirmed that the kitchen taps would not be moved, and the height of the kitchen units was the same as they had been before. The OT is employed as an expert in this field, and the Ombudsman has no basis for making a contrary finding. It was both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to act in accordance with the findings of the OT, who will have assessed the suitability of the property, including any works completed, in accordance with the needs of the resident.
12. The resident wanted her property deep cleaned, but the landlord found that the property was left in a reasonable condition after the works, and that any further deep clean would have to be paid for by the resident. It made arrangements and offered this to the resident, but it was declined. The landlord has said that the resident pays for limited care, but requires more care, to include cleaning, which she is unwilling to pay for. This is clearly a decision for the resident to make. The Ombudsman understands why the resident would want the property to be more thoroughly cleaned following the works, but there is nothing to support that this level of cleaning should be covered by the landlord.
13. The resident said that some items were missing from her property, including a calendar which she noted her carers’ visits on. It is appreciated that this would cause inconvenience for the resident. The landlord says that it has investigated the issue as part of a previous complaint investigation in 2021 and was satisfied that the contractors or removal company did not take the belongings. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to know exactly what happened, but it is reasonable that the matter has been investigated by the landlord, and that it referred the resident to the police to report the theft if desired.
14. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether a landlord has met its obligations to the resident, in line with any relevant policies and procedures, and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of this Service to decide whether the works at the property were completed to an appropriate standard, but to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems in a reasonable and competent manner.
15. It appears that the landlord has sent a senior manager and an Occupational Therapist to the property to inspect the remaining repair issues, some of which had not been reported before. It has acknowledged there were failings, offered a sum of compensation and has listed the outstanding repairs which the Ombudsman expects to have been completed by this time. If this is not the case, the landlord may wish to consider further compensation. This would be outside of the scope of this report.
16. There has been no compensation policy provided by the landlord. However, the compensation offered is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in such cases. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf  provides for compensation of between £250 and £700 to be awarded where there has been considerable service failure. This may involve “a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant” and “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.”
17. The sum offered is at the entry level of the recommended range, and this takes account of the fact that the work was inspected and found to be complete, and that the OT was included in inspections to ensure that the property was appropriate for the resident’s needs. It also takes into account that there was remedial work required after the resident moved back to her permanent address, even after eight months away from the property.
18. This does not dismiss the resident’s distress and acknowledges that there may be improvements which the resident would benefit from, but there is no evidence to show that the landlord is liable to do more than it has done or has committed to do. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident by the time of its final response letter in June 2021. If the further works listed in the final response letter are not completed, the resident can pursue these through the formal complaints route as appropriate, although this will hopefully not be necessary.

Decant during works

19. The landlord’s decant policy effective 2016, says at section 20 that properties will be offered to a ‘lettable standard’ and refers to a ‘lettable standard’ policy, which has not been seen. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) 1985 gives a list which would indicate a property was unfit for human habitation.
20. It has not been suggested by the resident that the property falls under the categories listed in the LTA. There were some issues which given the resident’s particular circumstances, caused difficulties. The landlord has explained that a surveying manager and project manager had inspected the property which was deemed habitable and certain adjustments were made to meet the resident’s needs, including rails and the removal of the kitchen door. The blinds were ordered but unfortunately the handy man who should have installed them was on leave. This could reasonably have been foreseen by the landlord, and it is appreciated that the resident stated she could not always fully get dressed, and therefore needed blinds in the kitchen. However, the installation of blinds would not necessarily fall within the remit of making a property lettable.
21. It is noted that the OT was able to take temporary measures to ensure privacy. Whilst this was not ideal, it was an instant resolution in the circumstances. The OT also connected the resident’s computer and TV. The resident was unhappy that the furniture removal men had not helped with this, but the landlord explained that it would not be their role to do so.
22. Outside of this, it is inevitable that there will be some inconvenience when a resident moves property, particularly temporarily, including additional costs incurred to connect and reconnect utilities. The landlord had acknowledged that there was miscommunication between parties which resulted in delays in the resident getting access to the internet. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by this and said that lessons had been learned.
23. The landlord has offered a ‘disturbance’ payment of £752, which it said was based on the number of bedrooms in a property. No policy has been seen to clarify what the payment should cover. The landlord has said that if the resident had incurred any additional costs she should provide receipts, and this would be considered but this has not been done. If the disturbance sum is standard and calculated on a per room basis, there is no reason this should not apply in this case, as for all of the landlord’s residents. However, it would be helpful to all parties of the grounds for the award were published and available to reassure residents that it was correct and what it included.
24. Given that the landlord appears to have taken reasonable action to react to the problems reported by the resident in the decant property, it has not been shown that further compensation is due in respect of this element of the complaint. That is not to say that the Ombudsman does not recognise that this was a difficult and inconvenient period for the resident, but that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the issues reported.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the major works to the resident’s property satisfactorily.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the residents decant from the property whilst works progressed.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord:

1. Follow up and consider the need to offer more compensation if the outstanding work to the resident’s property listed in the final response letter of 14 June 2021 have not been completed.
2. Follow up on the issues of rent charged for the decant property after the resident vacated and the request for a fire door at the resident’s property, if not already resolved.
3. The landlord should ensure that it has a ‘disturbance policy’ as referred to elsewhere and that staff are aware of this as appropriate.
4. Pay the sum of £250 already offered if not yet paid.