Haringey London Borough Council (202200748)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200748

Haringey Council

25 April 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s concerns that she was discriminated against.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Scope of Investigation

Within the resident’s complaint escalation request, she referred to two previous complaints she had raised with the landlord (references LBH/11620021 and LBH/9228091). To clarify the Ombudsman’s position set out in previous correspondence with the resident, this investigation will not consider these complaints in accordance with paragraphs 42 (a) and 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. These state that this Service will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure (relevant to LBH/11620021 which there is no evidence the resident escalated through the landlord’s complaint procedure after it issued a Stage One response), or that have not been brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of exhausting a landlord’s complaint procedure (relevant to LBH/9228091, to which the landlord provided a stage two response in January 2020).
In her complaint escalation request, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled an application for a medical review. In its stage two response to this complaint, the landlord advised that the resident would need to raise a new complaint regarding this issue, so it could investigate her concerns. This Service has not seen evidence the resident had previously raised this issue with the landlord so the landlord’s position was reasonable, and this will also not be considered as part of this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as set out above.
In her complaint and correspondence with this Service, the resident has referenced how the landlord’s investigation and handling of her reported repair issues has impacted her and physical and mental health, as well as the health of her child. While her concerns are noted, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on any causal link between the actions of the landlord, or lack thereof, and any reported health issues. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, it is recommended that she seek further independent advice. What this Service can investigate is whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports reasonably and whether it gave consideration to the concerns she raised over her health.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She has resided at the property, a two-bedroom, first floor flat, since 2009.
The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure states it will provide a response at stage one of its complaint procedure within 10 working days and within 25 working days at stage two.
Landlord records note a phone call received from the resident on 14 March 2022 in which she raised a complaint. It noted she had advised that “no-one had turned up regarding the (repair) job”, which had been raised on 28 February 2022. This investigation has not seen further details regarding the original complaint.
The landlord provided a response at stage one of its complaint procedure on 28 March 2022. It advised it understood the resident’s complaint to be about the time taken to resolve a leak affecting her home and its failure to attend following her reports of a collapsed ceiling. The landlord clarified that it had upheld the resident’s complaint and made the following findings and observations:
1. It advised it was “very sorry for (the) poor management of these works” to investigate and resolve the leak.
2. It noted the resident had advised she reported the leak in January 2022, but it stated it had no record of this. However, it then acknowledged its Customer Service Team had confirmed she called on 4 January 2022, noting the team had attempted to raise a repair after the call was cut off, but was unable to find the resident’s post code on their system and the call handler had taken down her phone number incorrectly so was unable to call her back. The landlord acknowledged the matter should have been escalated to a senior staff member and clarified that this issue had been addressed with staff.
3. Its records showed it had responded to reports of a further, unrelated leak on 28 February 2022, related to a stopcock. While it noted this was resolved on the day, it acknowledged this was a different repair from the one the resident attempted to raise the previous month and that “no job was raised for the leak coming from the property above”.
4. It noted a further order was raised “earlier on that day” (assumed to be 28 February 2022) to make safe the resident’s ceiling, although the job was not “allocated a time slot, meaning (it) was not attended to”. It acknowledged that when the resident chased this repair, having been advised it would be attended to on 14 March 2022, the works did not take place until three days later. It advised that its records did not identify why the works had not been completed on the original date.
5. It advised that its plumber attended the property above the resident’s on 25 March 2022 and identified the source of the leak. However, the landlord clarified that as it did not own the property above, it was unable to carry out the repairs. These were instead referred to the managing agent responsible for the property. It advised it had asked that the repairs be completed by 1 April 2022, and it would follow this up with the agents “to confirm the repairs are completed this week”.
6. It clarified that “due to the damage caused to your home” a surveyor’s appointment had been arranged for 13 April 2022 “to assess the remedial works” and that any follow-on works to make good would be arranged following this visit.
7. It apologised for not providing “a good service”, noted its “poor planning and communication” and advised it would learn from the case. The landlord acknowledged three occasions when “visits were not made and jobs (were) not raised” and offered the resident £30 for three missed appointments on 4 January, 28 February and 14 March 2022.
The resident responded to the landlord via a lengthy email sent on 7 April 2022 and requested her complaint be escalated. Some parts of her email referred to a previous complaint to which the landlord responded in 2019 and is not being considered by this investigation. Regarding her more recent complaint, she advised the reasons she remained dissatisfied included:
1. She had reported the leak in January 2022 and the “missing (repair) logs” made it appear she was not reporting the leaks when they occurred. She remained unhappy that the call handler had initially not taken her contact details down correctly and stated this was “negligence” by the landlord.
2. She had only had a response from the landlord once she had raised a complaint and believed this was evidence of discrimination due to her race and disability. She queried why she had to “wait so long” for a surveyor to attend her property and stated that she believed the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, had affected her mental and physical health.
3. She had raised concerns about mould in the property on 16 March 2022 and during a phone call with the landlord to discuss her complaint, during which she also advised she had sought medical advice due to health conditions she attributed to the presence of mould in her property. She had not, however, received an appointment for any inspection, despite submitting photos of the mould in her daughter’s room, which she stated had damaged bedding and clothing and also caused her daughter health complications. The resident stated that she believed the property was “not safe”, that she had first reported issues with mould in 2019 and that she believed her home was in breach of the “Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018”.
4. She also felt that the landlord only responded to complaints, rather than general repair reports, which were “ignored” and stated that this negatively impacted on her mental and physical health.
5. She advised she was awaiting the outcome of a medical assessment regarding a potential move to a “suitable property” and requested that she be decanted into an alternative property immediately “until the mould and other works have been completed”.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response, which it referred to as being an “independent review”, on 8 June 2022. It made the following findings:
1. It clarified it would not address the two previous complaints the resident referred to in her escalation request, advising that she was out of time to escalate the complaint to which it had provided a stage one response in October 2021 and that the other complaint, to which it had provided a stage two response in January 2020, had already been considered.
2. Regarding the medical review the resident referred to, it advised her to submit a new complaint regarding this if she was unhappy with how it had been handled. It advised that it did not agree to her decant request as these were reserved for situations “where repairs would make the property uninhabitable” and it did not consider her resident’s circumstances met these criteria.
3. It clarified it would address the resident’s complaint about its response to her reports of leaks in the property, that it only responded once she had logged official complaints, and that she had been discriminated against. It noted her request that treatment of the mould in the property and “any (other) repairs” were carried out “as soon as possible”.
4. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with its stage one response and clarified it had reviewed this. It apologised that her report of a leak in her property was not logged when she contacted the landlord in January 2022 and reiterated the explanation it had given in its stage one response, namely that her contact number had been incorrectly recorded.
5. Regarding the reported mould in the property, it advised that a surveyor had attended on 13 April 2022 and recommended mould wash treatment and plastering works be carried out. It noted that plastering works had been completed on 24 May 2022 and a mould wash was booked for 10 June 2022.
6. It “found fault with the lack of follow-up” regarding repairs, noting operatives had attended in February 2022 “to resolve the leak” but acknowledged that follow-on works had not been raised to repair the damage. It also acknowledged that these were not raised until the resident had chased it for updates. It noted that a survey had not been carried out at the property until April 2022 so “as a result, remedial works could not begin until May”.
7. It had not found any evidence that the resident had been discriminated against but apologised for “any inconvenience this had cause you and any impact this has had on your mental health”.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 September 2022. She advised that she had reported issues with mould “at the beginning of the year” and believed the landlord had only now dealt with the matter because she had complained. She stated she felt that the landlord only responded to repair reports once she had logged formal complaints.
This Service responded in October 2022 to acknowledge the resident’s complaint referral and to advise that some of the issues she had referred to within the escalation request she sent to her landlord would fall outside of the scope of this investigation, as outlined above in paragraphs 2 and 3.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and mould in the property

It is noted that the repair records provided by the landlord to this investigation are brief and appear to be lacking details regarding issues that have been reported by the resident and referred to by the landlord in its responses. As such, it has at times been difficult for this Service to establish what diagnoses the landlord made regarding the specific repair issues reported by the resident and whether it then responded appropriately or promptly to those issues. This raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping, its ability to evidence the steps it took when responding to repair reports and its overall management of the repairs process.
Regarding the leak the resident advised she reported to the landlord in January 2022, within the repair records seen by this Service, there is no reference to any reports of a leak into the resident’s property at this time. However, despite stating it its complaint responses that it did not have a “record” of the resident reporting a repair, the landlord went on to acknowledge that the resident did contact it on 4 January 2022. It noted that the call had cut off and the call handler had been unable to raise a repair order after the call ended because they were unable to find the resident’s postcode on their repairs system. It also advised that the call handler had taken the resident’s contact number down incorrectly so they were unable to call her back and that this should have been escalated to a more senior member of staff. It advised that this failing had been addressed internally.
It is appreciated that sometimes simple human error can be a cause for issues not being resolved appropriately. However, the landlord could have been more proactive in trying to raise an appropriate repair, or at least an inspection of the resident’s property, in this case. It is of concern that the resident’s property, in which she had lived since 2009 and was therefore not a new build, could apparently not be located on the landlord’s repairs system and the landlord does not appear to have investigated why this issue occurred. It was also not appropriate that, having been aware the resident had attempted to raise a repair concern, the landlord did not make further attempts to call her back (as her details should have already been recorded) and that her contact does not appear to have been logged within repair records at all. Overall, its response was not appropriate and meant it missed an opportunity to address the issue sooner.
Records show that a job was raised on 28 February 2022 to make safe the resident’s ceiling after a water leak, noting that “plaster on ceiling is damaged – ceiling fallen down”. However, it is noted that this order was only raised after an operative had attended following another, unrelated leak, rather than as any formal response to the resident’s original report. It is of concern that the job was then cancelled because it was not allocated a time slot. This was clearly an avoidable delay. Additionally, it is evident that this was not communicated to the resident, given that she chased the landlord for progress regarding the repair on 14 March 2022. This was not appropriate and was evidence of poor communication and unnecessary and avoidable delay by the landlord.
After the resident chased the works, the ceiling repair order was re-raised on 16 March 2022, along with further orders to fix plasterboard on the ceiling and “attend and trace leak from above affecting this property”. Repair records indicate that the latter was completed on 25 March 2022. However, the records again lack detail regarding the investigations the landlord carried out regarding the leak from the property above, such as any inspection reports or details of follow-up actions. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, that it apparently took the landlord over a week to attend to track and trace a leak was an unreasonable length of time, especially given the impact the repair issue had already had on the resident to date.
In its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised it had identified the source of the leak in the property above but that, as it did not own the property, it was unable to carry out any repairs itself. It advised that the identified repairs were referred to the managing agent responsible and that it had asked these to be completed by 1 April 2022. While these were reasonable steps for the landlord to take, it is again of concern that these details are not contained within its repair records – it remains unclear what the identified repairs were – and further evidence of how, and when, the repairs were referred to the managing agent has not been provided. Comprehensive repair records are a vital part of a landlord’s service provision and ensure that an appropriate audit trail can be provided. In this case, it is unclear what steps the landlord took to follow-up repairs with the managing agent, as it had stated it would in its complaint response, and there are no further details relating to any confirmation that the repairs had been completed. This was not appropriate and again raises concerns over the level of detail contained within the landlord’s repair records.
Similarly, while the landlord’s initial complaint response advised that a surveyor would carry out an inspection at the resident’s property in April 2022 “to assess the remedial works”, the surveyor’s report is not included within the landlord’s repair records or other records provided to this investigation and as such, there appears to be no record of their exact findings and recommendations. While the landlord advised in its final complaint response that further orders were raised for a mould wash to be carried out, this is not contained within its repair records.
Regarding the reported mould, although it is noted that the resident advised in her complaint escalation request that she first reported the issue in 2019, this Service has not seen any record of this within either party’s submissions. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this investigation will therefore assess the landlord’s response after she brought the issue to its attention in March 2022.
In her reports, the resident advised that mould was affecting her daughter’s room. While the landlord’s final complaint response noted that its surveyor recommended a mould wash be carried out, there is no further detail available regarding which areas of the property the landlord acknowledged were affected by mould, or of any investigations carried out to establish the cause. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to fully evidence it responded to the resident’s reports in a reasonable manner.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published in October 2021) noted that improved record keeping would result in significant benefits for landlords and residents and allow this Service to improve our understanding of the situation at the time of the landlord’s response. For landlords to have an effective and proactive approach to managing damp and mould, they will be heavily reliant on accurate records so they can consider the most appropriate response. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord kept appropriate records regarding its investigation of the issue.
In its submissions to this Service, the landlord confirmed that a survey inspection had been completed on 13 April 2022 and that further works had been raised. However, it advised that the property had been “assessed for mould wash” on 10 June and this had been completed on 2 September 2022. From the information seen by this Service, as above it remains unclear which part of the property the landlord assessed as requiring a mould wash, the reasons it believed mould was present in the property (particularly whether it was related to the leak from above or not), and why it took five months for the mould wash to be completed after the inspection took place in April 2022. This is not appropriate and means the resident was likely caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience by this further delay. These further delays are especially concerning given the resident had already had cause to complaint about the landlord’s repair handling and the impact the issues had had on her mental health. It is of concern that, despite identifying “learning points” in its final complaint response, the repairs were not completed for another three months.
It is also noted that, in her complaint, the resident stated she believed the landlord only responded to repair reports once she had made a formal complaint. While this investigation is not able to determine whether this is the case, it is nevertheless of note that within the landlord’s repair records, repairs raised in March 2022 are marked “Comp S1”, which is assumed to refer to the resident’s open stage one complaint. These repairs were completed relatively promptly. The landlord should be careful to ensure it does not give undue priority to repairs which are subject to open complaints and should endeavour to provide an efficient service to all residents once it has received a repair report which requires further investigation, regardless of whether a complaint has been made.
Overall, due to the delays and its poor communication and record keeping, the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and mould in her property amounted to maladministration. While it is noted that the landlord offered the resident £30 compensation to reflect three missed appointments in its stage one response, this did not come close to adequately addressing the impact the overall delays and poor repair handling had on the resident. It was also not appropriate that it was unclear whether this offer remained available at the end of the complaints procedure. An order has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to appropriately compensate the resident.
The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its repairs service, particularly in relation to its record keeping and its approach to reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and its repairs service.

The resident’s concerns that she was discriminated against

Within the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she stated that she believed she had been discriminated against and that being black, and disabled was a “crime” in the eyes of the landlord.
While the resident’s strength of opinion is acknowledged, this Service is not able to determine whether discrimination has taken place in the same way that a Court would be able to. Additionally, from the information seen, it is not clear exactly how the resident felt she was being discriminated against on the grounds of disability or race, such as whether other residents of different backgrounds were receiving preferential treatment or simply a better service.
However, while this investigation cannot determine whether discrimination had taken place, it will consider how the landlord responded to the concerns the resident raised. While it did address the matter in its stage two complaint response, finding that there was no evidence of any discrimination occurring, its response was very brief and provided no further details regarding the enquiries it had undertaken before reaching that conclusion. This was not appropriate and, given the seriousness of the resident’s accusations, the landlord should have provided a fuller response to ensure the resident felt her concerns had been taken seriously. Similarly, prior to providing its response, this Service would have expected the landlord to be more proactive in reaching out to the resident to establish why she felt that way and to understand her position so it could investigate the matter appropriately. That it did not do so meant it missed an opportunity to show it took her concerns seriously, had attempted to understand the way she felt, and that it would give full consideration to whether she had been treated differently to other residents in any way. This would also have potentially gone some way to repairing the fractured tenant/landlord relationship.
Within the information provided to this Service, there is no evidence regarding the steps the landlord took to investigate the resident’s concerns, such as reviewing its contact with her or its repair records to identify any potential issues in how it had responded to her various repair reports over time. This is not appropriate and calls into question how thoroughly the landlord considered the resident’s allegations before it satisfied itself that there was no case to answer. Overall, while this investigation is careful to stress that no evidence of discrimination by the landlord has been seen, considering its brief response and apparent lack of enquiries into the matter, there was service failure by the landlord regarding how it responded to the resident’s concern that she had been discriminated against.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident in a timely fashion, within the 10-working day timeframe set out in policy. However, its stage two response was not issued until 8 June 2022, meaning it took 40 working days to be issued (not including two Bank Holidays and the Easter weekend), outside its stated timeframe of 25 working days. It also failed to initially acknowledge the resident’s escalation request of 7 April 2022, causing her to chase the landlord on 29 April 2022. She later advised this Service that, as of 3 May 2022, she had still not received an acknowledgement from the landlord. This investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord did ever acknowledge the resident’s escalation request, prior to issuing its final complaint response. This was not appropriate and indicated poor handling of the complaint process and poor communication by the landlord. Its failure to keep the resident updated regarding the delayed response caused her uncertainty. She also spent time and trouble chasing it for updates and contacting this Service for assistance.
It was also not appropriate that the landlord’s stage two response failed to acknowledge the fact it was issued around three weeks outside its target timeframe and failed to provide any explanation for the delay. The landlord should have identified this failing and, in not doing so, it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident, via an apology or other means of redress such as an offer of compensation.
The stage two response appropriately and clearly set out the issues it would and would not cover, and its position that it would not address issues that had already been raised in previous complaints was reasonable. However, having advised it would address the issues “relating to the leaks you reported in your property”, it simply provided a brief summary of its stage one response, acknowledging that the report the resident made in January 2022 had not been logged and her phone number had been taken down incorrectly. While it was not unreasonable to restate its position regarding the initial failure to log the repair, the landlord did not appear to make any further investigation or enquiries regarding the subsequent delays in progressing the repairs. These included a work order raised in February 2022 that was cancelled and a further “test and trace” order being raised on 16 March 2022 but not completed until 25 March 2022.
While it was appropriate that it apologised for the failings it had identified (follow-on works not being raised following an attendance regarding an unrelated leak in February 2022 and a survey not being completed until April 2022), acknowledged there had been “poor service” and that the inconvenience caused may have impacted on the resident’s mental health, it did not appear to have considered whether any further redress would have been appropriate in order for it to “put things right” for her. Additionally, while it was positive that it advised it had raised a “learning point” with management regarding the reported impact on the resident’s mental health, this was a vague statement, and it is unclear precisely what learning the landlord took from the case or what it had identified that it could have done differently. This was not appropriate and would likely have left the resident feeling the landlord was providing a generic response to the issues she raised.
While there are concerns regarding how the landlord addressed the resident’s belief that she had been discriminated against, these have been addressed in paragraphs 27-30 above.
The landlord’s final response also failed to provide any response to the resident’s concern that her property was unsafe and potentially in breach of the Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018. While this is ultimately a matter for the courts to decide and this Service has not seen any evidence that the resident has commenced legal steps regarding this, it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to provide a position in response to her comments, or indeed address them at all. While it advised it would not offer her a decant as these were offered when repairs rendered a property uninhabitable and advised that her circumstances did not fall under these criteria, it should have provided further details regarding how it had reached this decision. By failing to address her reference to the Fitness of Human Habitation Act 2018, the landlord also missed the opportunity to show it had considered the overall condition of her property, which it should have been able to do having only recently arranged for an inspection to be completed, and whether it had satisfied itself that it remained suitable for her to reside in as per Section 10 of the Landlord Tenant Act 1985.
Its final response also made no reference to the £30 compensation it had awarded in its stage one response (£10 for each one of three missed appointments). While the resident had advised she did not wish to accept the compensation in her escalation request, the landlord’s final response should have offered clarity as to whether it was still on offer or had been withdrawn. That it did not do so was not appropriate. Additionally, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, as noted above, as the resident had advised it, she was unhappy with the amount offered, the landlord’s final response missed an opportunity to review the amount and consider whether a higher award would have been appropriate based on the issues it had identified. Based on the failings identified in this case, the Ombudsman considers that a review of the amount offered would have been appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s delayed stage two response and lack of acknowledgement of this, the lack of detail provided regarding any further enquiries it carried out during its stage two review and the lack of clarity around its compensation offer, amounted to service failure. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation that reflects the failings identified.
There are also concerns regarding the landlord’s use of the term ‘independent review’ to describe stage two of its complaints procedure, given that the response is provided by the landlord itself, rather than an independent party. However, the Ombudsman has recently made an order in another investigation to this landlord regarding this issue. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further orders or recommendations here but expects the landlord to take relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and mould in the property.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she had been discriminated against.
3. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord initially failed to log the resident’s initial report regarding a leak from the property above and then cancelled the order it did eventually raise without informing the resident. It further failed to appropriately raise follow on works, causing further delays. Its communication and record keeping were poor, meaning the steps it took address the leak and follow on repairs are at times unclear and there is insufficient evidence within it repair records regarding its investigation of her reports of damp in the property.
While it is not possible to determine whether the landlord did discriminate against the resident on grounds of race or disability, this investigation has not seen evidence that suggests this was the case. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to the resident or this investigation to show it carried out appropriate enquiries to investigate her concerns and did not demonstrate how it satisfied itself there had been no discrimination against her.
The landlord’s final complaint response did not address all the concerns the resident raised in her original complaint and escalation request, and it remained unclear if the compensation offered at stage one remained available at the end of the procedure. Its final response was issued outside of its stated target time, and this was not acknowledged.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £750, consisting of:
1. £500 for its poor response to the resident’s reports of a leak and mould and the impact this had on her.
2. £100 for its poor handling of her concerns regarding alleged discrimination.
3. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
The landlord should also write to the resident to apologise for the identified failings relating to its repair response and complaint handling.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance within four weeks of the date of this report.