Haringey London Borough Council (202118032)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118032

Haringey Council

28 March 2023

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 allegations which it said led it to decide not to carry out redecoration at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a first floor flat.
The lease, which commenced in 1989, sets out the contract between the parties. The landlord is obligated to maintain, repair and redecorate the structure of the building, while the resident is responsible for the decoration of the internal parts of the flat. The landlord is obligated to insure the building and flat to cover any destruction or damage to the structure, while the resident is obligated to pay a contribution towards the insurance in the service charge.

Summary of events

This Service understands that in 2019, there was water ingress at the property and damage to the living room, for which the landlord’s insurer settled a claim to the amount of £336. This Service then understands that there was some further water ingress which resulted in damage to the same area.
In December 2020, the landlord says that it inspected and identified that external perished pointing and a hole behind a rainwater pipe were causing water ingress, resulting in dampness to a corner wall of the resident’s living room; a blockage to a rainwater hopper was causing water to run along an external wall; and there were mould patches on the outer wall at an upper wall junction in the living room. The landlord says it raised works to investigate leaks to the roof and wall; repoint perished pointing; block the hole behind the downpipe; and unblock the rainwater hopper. It also says it raised works to test and make safe electric sockets in the living room; supply a dehumidifier to dry out the corner wall of the living room; and apply mould treatment in the living room. The resident says that she was informed that contractors who did the external works would paint her ceiling and walls, but this was not put in writing; while the landlord says that the resident requested for the living room to be redecorated, and she was informed that this was her responsibility as a leaseholder.
In January 2021, a councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to resolve the water ingress. On 29 January 2021, the landlord responded that all the external works had been completed and investigation had identified that nothing was wrong with the roof. It said that works in leasehold properties was typically leaseholder responsibility, but it had raised some works as a gesture of goodwill to acknowledge the repair should have been resolved sooner. These were the works to test sockets; supply a dehumidifier; and apply mould treatment. It said that the resident had confirmed in a telephone call that there had not been any water penetration since the external works, and that she had been told the mould works were arranged for the following day.
The resident says that contractors subsequently attended on 1 February 2021. Her account suggests that internal decoration was discussed, and she was told this would cost £2,800. Her account says that after she explained it was a “council job,” she was told paint had been delivered to a wrong address and there would be an appointment the next day. She says that this did not happen, however, and she did not receive any update about what was going on.
In March 2021, a councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They noted that the resident, who had been reporting issues with her flat for over a year, said the issue was not completely resolved, and they asked for the landlord’s assistance in finishing work it had committed to do. The landlord responded that external and internal works recommended by its surveyor were complete, and the resident had confirmed a mould wash of the affected wall had been done. It said that an aerial socket had also been replaced, and it was in discussions with the surveyor about the decoration of the internal wall, which was not in the original scope of works. After some chasing from the councillor and resident, the landlord referred to the resident having been informed that internal decoration was a leaseholder’s responsibility.
In April 2021, the councillor contacted the landlord and raised concern that there had been a lack of communication with the resident. They said that the resident had told them that workmen had turned up to do painting, but they had brought the wrong paint and also requested money to paint. The councillor queried how this happened if the landlord was saying the works were complete. The landlord discussed matters with its contractor, and noted that they reported the resident had shouted and become abusive after she had been told to employ a decorator since she was a leaseholder. The landlord noted that moving forward, it had asked the contractors to return for redecoration, which the resident would be contacted about.
In May 2021, the landlord received further chasers from the councillor and the resident as they were yet to be contacted. The landlord discussed matters with its contractor, and noted that they reported that they had not been able to progress the job as the resident had been aggressive and abusive when trying to book appointments with her by phone. The landlord noted that the contractor said that they would try to schedule the appointment again but they would not tolerate abusive behaviour.
On 2 August 2021, the landlord requested an update from its contractor. The contractor noted that they had attempted to return and redecorate the lounge after they had carried out a mould wash, but the resident had not wanted just the ceiling and walls redecorated, and the landlord’s surveyor had agreed to redecorate including the woodwork. They noted that when originally attending, the resident had been ‘unpleasant’ to deal with and insulting towards the landlord’s surveyor and a contractor that had attended. They noted that a supervisor had attempted to contact the resident but she was rude and abusive so they never returned. They said that they would attempt to complete the works within two to three weeks, but said they could not expect their operatives to be insulted if the resident continued with an ‘unpleasant attitude’ towards the people involved.
The resident subsequently made a complaint, for which no evidence is provided about when this was made or what this said, and on 16 August 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response:
1. It noted that it understood the resident complained about delays completing works inside her property.
2. It said that it agreed to carry out internal works as a gesture of goodwill, which were delayed due to several allegations of “indecent, prejudiced and racist behaviour” towards contractors and staff dealing with her case. It said that such behaviour was not acceptable.
3. It said that in light of the allegations and the works being a gesture of goodwill that it had no obligation to do, it was regretfully retracting its offer to do them.
4. It noted that the resident may still be able to make a liability claim for damage to her property via its insurance team, and it provided their contact details.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord issued a final response, for which no evidence is provided about when an escalation was received and what this said. It said it recognised that the resident was unhappy with the previous response. It said its contractor reported that the resident had referred to landlord staff with a racial slur, and had made negative comments about the nationalities of the contractor’s staff, neither of which were acceptable. It said that it took the alleged incidents seriously; the decision to withdraw the works was not taken lightly; and it was unable to overturn the decision via the complaints process. It restated that the resident could pursue a claim for any damage to her property via its insurance team.
In November 2021, the resident brought her complaint to this Service. She disputed the allegations against her. She was unhappy that the offer to complete the works was retracted without any proof of the allegations, and she was unhappy that she was not provided details of the alleged incidents and given a chance to respond to them. She said that being called racist, indecent and prejudiced without proof had caused her much distress, and she said she was seeking an apology and for the allegations to be retracted.
In early 2022, there was correspondence between the resident and the landlord’s insurers, who asked the resident to provide written confirmation from the landlord that a repair had been completed to the external element causing the damage to her living room.
In April 2022, when the landlord responded to enquiries from us, it said the decoration works were agreed between the leaseholder and its contractor and this was not something it was involved in. It said the contractors then withdrew their offer and stood firm in their decision not to return due to the resident’s unreasonable behaviour. It said the contractors used this as a case in point to understand and acknowledge the importance of reporting altercations/incidents of this nature. It said that its contractor was no longer working for it. It said its contractor should not have deviated from their instructed works and had a separate agreement with the leaseholder. It said this was not its doing and it addressed this with the contractor at the time. It says it made a concerted effort to try to get the contractor to honour the agreement, to no avail. It said a team of contractors refused to return and the contractors initially tried to get an alternative team to attend. Then, when the contractor could not get a team to return to the property, they spoke to the workmen who had been working in the property and from the collected feedback decided to withdraw their offer completely. It said it would not be honouring an agreement made between the leaseholder and the contractor, and said it was under no obligation to do so.
In March 2023, when the landlord responded to further queries about the case, it said the allegations of indecent, prejudiced, and racist behaviour referenced in the responses were not fully investigated, and were based on the contractor’s comments that the resident referred to the contractor’s operatives as ‘immigrants’ and called a member of the landlord’s staff ‘African.’ It also said that the remaining works were agreed between contractor and leaseholder as gesture of good will, and it did not get involved until the contractor refused to return, the resident complained, and it sought to explore a resolution.

Assessment and findings

The landlord is obligated to maintain and repair the structure of the building, while the resident as a leaseholder is responsible for the internal decoration of her flat. The landlord met its obligations by the end of January 2021 following reports of water ingress in December 2020, as after it completed works and confirmed there were no further issues with the roof, the resident reported no further water ingress. The landlord was customer focused following this to agree some additional works to test sockets, provide a dehumidifier, and arrange a mould treatment.
The landlord was under no obligation to redecorate the resident’s lounge, and it is not clear how an agreement to do so arose. The landlord’s explanation to this Service after its complaint responses is not entirely satisfactory. The landlord says that the works were agreed between the contractor and resident, but April 2021 correspondence advises that after the contractor told the resident to employ a decorator since she was a leaseholder, the landlord asked the contractor to return to redecorate. It is not clear that prior to this point, the contractor had agreed to do the works. In addition, August 2021 correspondence refers to the landlord’s surveyor agreeing for woodwork to be included in the redecoration. These both suggest that the landlord had more involvement in the agreement to redecorate than it details to us. However, given the resident’s responsibility for the internal redecoration of her flat, the lack of redecoration of the resident’s flat by the landlord and its contractor is ultimately in line with the lease.
The landlord’s complaint responses say that the allegations against the resident, rather than the stated responsibilities in the lease, led it to withdraw the works. The resident disputes these allegations; raises dissatisfaction at not having been provided details of them; and says being called racist, indecent and prejudiced had caused distress to her.
The landlord and its contractor are reasonable to expect customers to conduct themselves appropriately. However, when wording its own allegations in the way it did, the landlord should be able to provide clear examples of the alleged behaviour, which it did not do. The landlord would also be expected to have and follow an unacceptable behaviour policy, and after reports in April and May 2021, it would have been expected to take action to try to manage the alleged behaviour (such as send warning letters) before the later reports in August 2021 that it says led to the works being withdrawn. The landlord confirms to us that the allegations against the resident were not fully investigated, and provides limited information for the basis on which its complaint responses said that the resident had carried out “indecent, prejudiced and racist behaviour.” We therefore have limited ability to attempt to resolve any accounts or to consider whether the landlord’s responses were reasonable. It is also noted that, while it has not significantly impacted the investigation, the landlord has not been able to supply the complaint and escalation which prompted its responses.
The above is not satisfactory. While there was no obligation for the landlord to carry out the works, and it is entitled to rely on contractors’ reports to some extent, the wording of its responses comes across as heavy-handed on the evidence it had; the limited investigation it carried out; and the lack of prior action to try to manage the alleged behaviour in line with an unacceptable behaviour policy. The landlord’s handling has the potential to have caused distress and a sense of injustice to the resident, if she disputes she was indecent, prejudiced and racist and so disputes the basis on which the works were stated to have been withdrawn. This leads the Ombudsman to make a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of allegations which it said led it to decide to not carry out redecoration at the resident’s property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of allegations which it said led it to decide not to carry out redecoration at the resident’s property.

Reasons

While there is no obligation for the landlord to carry out internal works at the resident’s property, the wording of its responses comes across as heavy-handed on the evidence it had; the limited investigation it carried out; and the lack of prior action to try to manage the alleged behaviour in an appropriate way.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident for the distress caused by the wording of its complaint responses, in line with the approach encouraged in our guidance.
The landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress caused to her.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of this decision.
The landlord to review the case and:
1. implement a resident unacceptable behaviour policy if it does not have one.
2. consider staff training needs in respect to ensuring that unacceptable behaviour from its residents against its staff and contractors is dealt with in accordance with a proper process.
3. ensure any warnings or responses it issues about resident behaviour are worded proportionately to the evidence; details of incidents; and any prior action to manage the unacceptable behaviour.
4. ensure it maintains adequate records for details of incidents and complaints.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within six weeks of this decision.