Haringey London Borough Council (202100791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100791

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:
1. Response to and handling of a leak into the resident’s property.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of damaged and stolen items.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The complaint concerns two properties.
The resident was the tenant of property A until November 2021, when she became the tenant of property B.
Both properties are supported housing.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that she has multiple health conditions including cancer, heart disease and lung disease.
As part of her complaint to the landlord the resident raised concerns regarding its management of her rent account when she was becoming the tenant of property B. As the resident confirmed in correspondence to the landlord that she was happy with the outcome it provided at stage one of its complaints procedure, this aspect of the complaint will not be referred to further within this report.

Summary of events

On 21 March 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding its:
1. Response to and handling of a leak into property A.
2. Handling of her request for a property transfer.
3. Response to her report of damaged and stolen items during her permanent move to property B.
In respect of the landlord’s response to and handling of a leak into property A the resident said:
1. On 10 September 2020 she returned to property A from a chemotherapy appointment and discovered “massive flooding” from the flat above.
2. She attempted to report the flood via property A’s emergency cord and by phone to the “hub coordinator” however the operatives she spoke with refused to assist. She reported that the hub coordinator, operative X, put the phone down on her. [The Hub is part of the supported housing scheme].
3. She phoned the landlord’s repairs team who eventually sent an electrician. She confirmed that the electrician disconnected the lights in property A’s bathroom.
4. On 11 September 2020 she attended the Hub to report that the flooding had continued all evening. She confirmed that the operative, operative Y, advised that they would contact the repairs team once they had finished what they were doing.
5. As she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the flooding she contacted operative Z for assistance as he had been helpful in resolving a previous flood. She reported that operative Z “sorted out [the] repairs” and “after two days of flooding the leaks were fixed”.
In respect of the landlord’s handling of her request for a property transfer.
1. Despite reporting that the flood had caused property A to become damp and mouldy the landlord delayed in taking action in providing her with alternative accommodation. She explained the landlord should have expedited a move due to her health conditions, which it was aware of.
2. It was only as a result of intervention from operative Z and her MP that she was granted a new tenancy at property B.
In respect of the landlord’s response to her reports of damaged and stolen items during her permanent move to property B the resident said:
1. The landlord hired “a cowboy firm” [the company] to complete her move from property A to property B on 24 and 25 November 2020.
2. The company damaged and/ or stole “£10,000” worth of her personal belongings and left without completing the job.
Within her complaint the resident noted that other landlord operatives had been involved in the case who were unhelpful and dismissive.
On 9 April 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response following a telephone call with the resident. The landlord opened by confirming that it was sorry to learn of the resident’s experiences and of her health.
In respect of the leak into property A the landlord said:
1. It “encourages” residents to report their own repairs.
2. It understood that the leak into the property was urgent and therefore it would have been “helpful” for officer X to have assisted the resident in reporting the repair.
3. It had investigated the resident’s report that officer X had hung up on her. It noted that there were no witnesses to the incident. It confirmed that it however recognised that the leak would have been “very distressing” to the resident, advising that it would continue to provide support where “necessary and needed”.
4. On 11 September 2020 officer Y raised a repair following a report from a neighbour reporting a leak from the flat. It set out that a plumber attended however they “failed to turn off the water from the mains” meaning that water continued to leak into property A. It confirmed that the water was capped by its out of hours team later that evening.
5. On 14 September 2020 the resident reported damage to property A and her belongings following the leak. In response it visited the resident to provide reassurance and support. It noted that officer Y also contacted the resident over the following days to provide updates and to check on her wellbeing.
6. Based on the above information it was satisfied that “immediate repairs issues were addressed following the incident [with officer X]”. It however acknowledged the resident’s “noted experience” and would like to apologise for any distress caused.
In respect of the resident’s reports of damaged and stolen items the landlord said:
1. It was sorry to read of the resident’s negative experience with the company.
2. It acknowledged that moving was always a stressful experience, noting that this would have been more so for the resident due to her health conditions.
3. It understood that the resident had made a claim with the company for stolen and damaged items which was an “ongoing investigation”. It confirmed that it was unable to comment.
The landlord concluded its response by confirming that the resident may escalate her complaint if she was not happy with its response.
On 14 April 2021 the resident requested to escalate the complaint.
In respect of the landlord’s response to and handling of a leak into property A the resident said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had suggested that no further action could be taken against officer X as there was no witness to the phone call. She reiterated that officer X’s response to her request for assistance was unacceptable as they told her the matter was not their responsibility and hung up.
2. The leak was only remedied following her persistence in pursuing the matter, not as a result of the landlord’s actions.
3. No help or support was offered by the landlord on visiting property A following the leak. She explained that the landlord “took photos and left”.
In respect of the landlord’s response to her reports of damaged and stolen items during her permanent move to property B the resident said:
1. There was “nothing alleged” about her reports of damaged and stolen items by the company.
2. The landlord’s own staff had witnessed the “damaged and destruction” caused by the company. It was therefore unsatisfactory that the landlord was refusing to take any action to support her.
On 16 April 2021 the resident provided an addendum to her escalation request. She set out that the landlord’s officers had not treated her with dignity and respect and had failed to provide support in respect of the leak and her move to property B. The resident stated that she had been treated “disgustingly”. The resident set out that she was due compensation by the landlord for her personal belongings that were either damaged or stolen by the company.
On 20 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord explained that this Service had been in touch with it to report that the resident was not happy with its stage one response. The landlord therefore asked the resident to detail the aspects of her complaint that she remain dissatisfied with. The landlord confirmed that on receipt of the information it would review the complaint.
On 22 July and 16 August 2021 the resident responded to the landlord. The resident stated that her complaint was “never dealt with [and] it was completely ignored”. Within her correspondence the resident reiterated that the landlord’s response to the leak had been unsatisfactory and it was unacceptable that she had not had a resolution in relation to damaged and stolen belongings by the company. The resident also stated that, apart from officer Z, the landlord had shown “remarkable indifference” in arranging a property transfer following the leak.
On 21 September 2021, following a reminder from this Service, the landlord provided its stage two, final, response.
In respect of the leak into property A the landlord said:
1. It was sorry if the resident’s experience fell short when dealing with its operatives located at the Hub.
2. Its investigation at stage one found that there was no evidence to support the resident’s allegations about officer X. It confirmed that despite this it apologised if the resident’s experience was “difficult during a distressing time”. It noted that further investigation of the allegations would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
3. Its investigation at stage one found that the leak was not resolved “as quickly as it should have been” as the mains water was not turned off by the attending plumber on 11 September 2020. It confirmed that the plumber reported that the leak was due to “debris in the main tank”. It set out that the out of hours plumber capped the water later on 11 September 2020. It confirmed that it was sorry for the service provided.
In respect of the resident’s request for a property transfer the landlord said:
1. When property B was a void property it was inspected and no damp and mould was identified.
2. In light of the resident’s reports of damp and mould it would carry out an assessment.
In respect of the resident’s reports of damaged and stolen items the landlord said:
1. It was not able to investigate the resident’s claim that the company had damaged or stolen items during her move to property B.
2. It was aware that the resident had submitted an insurance claim with the company for the items. It confirmed that it would liaise with the company’s loss adjustors as required.
3. It was unable to award the resident any compensation for loss or damage to her personal belongings as this was not covered by its compensation policy.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it was sorry that the resident felt that her health and wellbeing was being ignored by it. The landlord told the resident that she may refer her complaint to this Service if she was not happy with its response.
On 22 September 2021 the resident responded to the landlord to point out “some glaring errors” in its final response. In summary the resident said:
1. The leak occurred on a Thursday and was not stopped until Friday evening. She stated that she therefore experienced on-going flooding in property A for “36 hours”.
2. She contacted officer Z who took steps to ensure the leak was resolved.
3. She had never reported that property B had damp and mould. She confirmed that property A had damp and mould as a result of the leak.
4. Despite the landlord being aware of her health conditions it delayed in arranging new accommodation.
As the resident was not happy with the landlord’s final response she referred the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to and handling of a leak into the resident’s property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into property A and to put right any issues identified which were its responsibility.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its response to the resident’s report of a leak into property A. This includes repair records from property A and the flat. From review of the records the Ombudsman can see that on 11 September 2020 the landlord completed an emergency call out to repair “burst pipe” in the flat. The Ombudsman has not identified any further records in respect of the leak.
As part of her complaint the resident set out that she attempted to report the leak on 10 September 2020, one day before the leak was remedied, however was unsuccessful due to the conduct of officer X. While there are no records documenting the resident’s contact, the landlord has not disputed that she did request assistance from officer X but was not assisted as it accepted within its complaint responses that:
1. Officer X could have been more helpful.
2. The repair was addressed following the incident with officer X.
As the property was part of supported housing, which should deliver support and assistance in addition to accommodation, it was unsatisfactory that no help was provided to assist the resident make a repair request on 10 September 2020 when she attended the hub.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged the resident’s “noted experience” with officer X and accepted that it had not handled the repair to fix the leak as quickly as possible. The landlord therefore apolgoised for “any distress caused”. Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider whether it has offered reasonable redress.
While it was appropriate that the landlord offered an apology, to acknowledge the impact on the resident in its handling of the leak, alone it does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because the landlord’s failure to assist the resident in raising a repair on 10 September 2020 was a missed opportunity in stopping the leak at an earlier time and will have resulted in a period of distress, inconvenience and uncertainty for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer

From the evidence provided the first request the Ombudsman has identified of the resident requesting a property transfer is dated 5 October 2020, which was approximately 15 working days after the leak was remedied. Following the resident’s request dated 5 October 2020 the evidence shows:
1. On 5 October 2020 the landlord requested an assessment for re-housing within the sheltered scheme. The landlord noted that the request was supported by the resident’s GP.
2. On 9 October 2020 the landlord completed an “assessment for supported housing”.
3. On 22 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to make an offer of permanent accommodation. The landlord explained that its offer was made due to exceptional circumstances.
4. The resident moved into property B on 24 and 25 November 2020.
Following review of the chronology the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted swiftly in assessing and approving the resident’s request for alternative accommodation from 5 October 2020.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged and stolen items

In response to the resident’s report that the company had damaged and/ or stolen her belongings during the move it advised her that the matter needed to be taken up with the company directly for a response. This was reasonable. This is because the landlord had no jurisdiction over the company and it was aware that the company had its own insurance policy which it could investigate and respond to the allegations.
The evidence shows that despite directing the resident to contact the company to report her concerns regarding its conduct, the landlord did liaise with the company about her allegations. This included in January 2021 when it requested that it “respond to her issue immediately”. This was good practice as it was aware that the situation was causing the resident distress and therefore to assist in bringing her a prompt resolution.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint chronology demonstrates that the landlord promptly provided the resident with its stage one response. However the evidence shows that the landlord’s stage two, final, response was provided significantly outside of the 20 working days prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code; a delay of approximately five months. The evidence further shows that the stage two response was only provided following intervention from this Service. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It was also unsatisfactory as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord acknowledged or apologised for the delay.
There were shortcomings in terms of the contents of the landlord’s complaint responses. Firstly the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about its handling of her request for a property transfer within its stage one response. Secondly, while the landlord did discuss property B within its stage two response, its reply addressed erroneous issues which the resident had not raised. These omissions were unsatisfactory as it denied the resident a comprehensive response to all the issues which she raised and demonstrated a lack of understanding by the landlord on the complaint. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code where a landlord is unclear of any aspect of the complaint, the resident must be asked for clarification. There is no evidence that the landlord did this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to and handling of a leak into the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damaged and stolen items.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to and handling of a leak into the resident’s property

While the landlord apologised that its handling of the leak had not always been satisfactory, as officer X could have been more helpful and the repair was not completed as quickly as possible, this does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because alone it does not accurately reflect the missed opportunity by the landlord in taking steps to remedy the leak at an earlier time by assisting the resident to raise a repair on 10 September 2020.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer

The evidence shows that the landlord swiftly assessed and approved the resident’s request for a property transfer on receipt of her request on 5 October 2020.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged and stolen items

As the landlord had no jurisdiction over the company, and it was aware that the company had its own insurance policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the company directly for a response to her reports of damaged and stolen items during the move.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s stage two response was significantly delayed, which it failed to acknowledge and apologise for.
The landlord failed to address and appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns regarding its handling of her request for a property transfer at stage one.
The landlord addressed erroneous issues which the resident had not raised in relation to property B within its stage two response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £300 for the repairs service it provided the resident, and the resulting distress, inconvenience and uncertainty she would have experienced as a result.
2. £200 for complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should take steps, and implement training where necessary, to ensure that its staff are proactive in assisting a resident in reporting a repair.
The landlord should ensure that it keeps appropriate records of all contacts made with its residents, including phone calls.
The landlord should consider introducing an information sheet to provide to its residents where it arranges a removal firm to complete a house move for a tenant. The information sheet should clearly explain the landlord’s position in respect of liability of a tenant’s personal belongings and the correct procedure to follow where allegations are made against the removal firm in order to manage expectations.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to make sure that it responds to complaints in line with best practice including timeliness of responses, all aspects of a complaint are addressed and appropriate clarification is obtained where an issue is not clear.