Haringey London Borough Council (202114994)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114994

Haringey London Borough Council

30 May 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s concerns about its effective management of water tanks (including maintenance and whether an alternative supply should be provided);
2. the resident’s queries about the service charges for the water tanks;
3. communication and complaints handling related to the above two issues.

Background and summary of events

The property is a two bedroom flat in a block. The resident is the leaseholder of the property.
The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 27 November 2020. He complained about the unreasonable charges for water tank maintenance. He set out that he had first raised the issue in February 2015. He stated that weekly flushing of water tanks and monthly monitoring had not occurred. The landlord had provided a response in January 2017, setting out that the monitoring had occurred, which the resident disagreed with.
The resident asked for engineer logs of weekly and monthly monitoring since January 2015, or at least for the past 24 months; that information be provided about two communal taps; a risk and cost-benefit assessment to justify the water tank maintenance costs; and an explanation for the increasing in the annual charge for maintaining the tanks from £908.64 in 2015/16 to £2,328.21 in 2019/20. He forwarded this email to another department of the landlord on 3 December 2020.
The landlord responded on 17 December 2020. It noted that the provider of the maintenance services had changed since 2017. It provided copies of the contractor’s visits and stated that these demonstrated that the work had been completed to the landlord’s requirements. It apologised that it was not able to provide information about the cost increase at that time as this was still under investigation. It added that it would provide this information to the resident “in the coming weeks”.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident a second stage complaint response. It noted that the resident’s complaint stemmed from the change of contractor to manage the communal water tanks in 2017. The resident’s complaint was that the charges for water sampling and maintaining the tank were excessive and that there was not enough water sampling being done. The resident’s proposed resolution was for a water feed direct to the property (rather than a tank) to be installed. The landlord noted that the resident had also complained that since December 2020, it had not provided an explanation as to why there was a service charge increase and proof that sampling had been undertaken and the landlord had not responded to his email of 13 September 2021. The landlord set out that it could not consider matters that happened over 12 months ago, and it had therefore focused on the resident’s complaint since December 2020.
The landlord’ response found the following:
1. Evidence of water sampling was provided to the resident with the stage one complaint response in December 2020. It attached further weekly sampling sheets and recommended that the resident submit a Freedom of Information request if he wanted further evidence. It explained the process for water sampling, including spot checks.
2. It noted that in the stage one response it had not been able to provide information relating to the increased cost and said that this would be provided in the coming weeks, most likely after Christmas. The resident chased this several times and the information was not provided until 17 May 2021. The landlord found that this was a service fault.
3. It advised the resident that it could not deal with reason for the increase in the service charge via the complaints process and if the resident wished to appeal this, he could do so at the first tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
4. It advised the resident that it was exploring the option of a direct water feed to the property.
5. There had been a further service fault in it communicating sporadically with the resident between May 2021 and September 2021. It stated that it would have expected itself to have been more regularly in contact with the resident and “at the very least” explained the reason for the delay. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the lack of communication.
6. It sent the resident information about the service charge increase on 27 May 2021. The landlord stated that the increase was due to works being undertaken and RPI increase. It noted that the costs were applied to the block as a whole and cover the water services to the block.
In November 2021, there were internal discussions by the landlord regarding the possibilities of a mains conversion, which indicated that it could be possible but further investigations were needed. In internal landlord communications in September 2022, it was set out that in 2021 it had been concluded that a mains feed was not a viable option because of the extent and cost of the works that would be required – which would have increased the service charges. It noted it would cost approximately £5,000 per property to convert to mains plus a further £6,000 to change over the tank.
On 1 December 2021, the resident responded to an email from the landlord sent on 30 November 2021 (this email has not been provided). He stated that the landlord was not providing a clear response. It had “passed” on the issue of the cost/benefit analysis. He disagreed with the landlord’s comments about alternative flushing points. He stated that the evidence did not show that the required servicing had been undertaken. He stated that the landlord had not explained the service charge increase adequately in the stage two response.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord sought to arrange a call to discuss the issues with the resident.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 21 December 2021 in which it explained that its position was that converting the block to mains feed would require substantial works and a substantial disruption to residents. The landlord’s view was that it would not “add any value to the standard of living of the tenants”. It confirmed that it would not be converting the block to the mains feed.
The resident responded to this on 22 December 2021 setting out his disagreement with the landlord’s position. He had a different view on the technical changes needed to change the water supply and stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s position. He was not satisfied with the landlord’s explanation as to why the mains connection could not be done. He also stated that the landlord had still failed to explain the service charge for maintenance escalation from £908.64 in 2015/16 to £2328.21 in 2019/20. He acknowledged that the landlord had issued a section 20 notice to replace the tanks on 16 December 2021. He asked for the landlord to provide an “elementary, true and transparent risk-benefit evaluation of the direct feed”. He stated his view that a one off charge was likely to be more beneficial than ongoing maintenance service charges.
The landlord responded on the same day, confirming that it would not be converting the block to the mains feed. It acknowledged that the resident had asked more questions, but referred the resident to the Ombudsman if he wished to escalate his complaint.
The resident sent a further communication to the landlord on 23 December 2021. It set out his views that leaseholders and buildings (including his) that were directly connected to the mains did not benefit from water storage tanks and should not be charged for maintaining or replacing such tanks. He further submitted that connecting all flats to the mains would involve a one-off charge and cancel the need for proposed works and perpetual maintenance charges. He stated that the tanks had “been neglected for years” but the maintenance charges had nevertheless increased by nearly 160% from 2015/16 to 2019/20.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord provided a response to the resident. It stated that a review of the tanks was undertaken and found that there was a benefit to the properties. It advised the resident that the issues he had raised were part of his complaint that had been dealt with and should be raised with this Service. The resident responded that these were observations and not queries.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord sent an email to the resident regarding a number of issues he had raised, including about the costs for maintaining the water tanks. The landlord stated to the customer that its legal advice was “not to answer the same questions that you have consistently raised over the last two years regarding water tanks”.
The landlord gave the resident a Notice of Proposed Tank Replacement Works which was dated 17 March 2023 and received by the resident in April 2023. The letter noted that section 20 regulations did not apply as the proposed charge for the work was £250 which was below the threshold for a section 20 notice. It noted that the resident would be informed of the proposed start date for the works shortly and the costs would be included in the service charge. There would not be an additional management charge.
The resident advised the landlord on 14 April 2023 that he objected to the charge for replacement tanks, which were needed due to poor maintenance. He also stated that the landlord’s “endemic complaints handling failures” and refusal “to engage in mediation” had contributed to the charges. He stated that there had been misrepresentations, poor communication, duplicated charges and poor record keeping. He sought further clarity from the landlord on how it had calculated the charges.
On 26 April 2023, the landlord advised this Service that its view was that the resident’s request to implement a direct water fed on site is uneconomical. It confirmed that it had recently informed the resident of the proposed replacement of the tanks and the costs. It confirmed its view that the current system and planned maintenance was appropriate.

Assessment and findings

Management of the water supply

The crux of the resident’s concerns about the water tanks for the block is that the landlord has failed to maintain them properly and it has not properly considered what is, in his view, the better option of connecting to the mains.
The Ombudsman starts by noting that it is not appropriate for this Service to make a determination on technical issues or to determine what is the best method for water supply and what specific technical requirements should apply to maintenance. However, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider whether the landlord has provided reasonable customer service to the resident. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take steps to consider the resident’s concerns and communicate its views to the resident in a reasonable manner. In this determination, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns and communicated its position.
With respect to the resident’s concerns about maintenance, the landlord has provided evidence of routine maintenance records. These were provided to the resident on 17 December 2020. It also explained the process for sampling and maintenance to the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns that these records were not credible and the maintenance contractor was not, in fact, undertaking some, or all, of the maintenance work. However, It was appropriate for the landlord to rely upon the records kept by its contractor to reach a view on the frequency and quality of maintenance. It also offered reassurance to the resident on the spot check process that it had in place. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to consider the resident’s concerns about maintenance and to communicate its position.
The evidence also shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to consider the option for connecting to the mains which the resident proposed. There were detailed internal discussions by the landlord about the viability of a mains connection. Ultimately, the landlord determined that this was not a viable option, taking into account the costs of conversion to a mains supply. It advised the resident that it had evaluated the option and concluded that it would not add substantive value to the standard of living of the tenants and that it would require substantial works and disruption to the residents.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to consider the resident’s proposed option of changing to a mains supply and its evaluation that it was not a preferred outcome was reasonable. It also communicated its position to the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was not satisfied with the detail of the landlord’s explanation. The main communication of the landlord’s position was in the email to the resident on 21 December 2021. It explained that the work would be too disruptive and substantial and would not add adequate value. The Ombudsman notes that there has been further communications about this after the conclusion of the landlord’s Internal Complaints Process. A Recommendation is made below that the Landlord write to the Resident to provide more detail on its costings or explain why if it is unable to do so.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord has taken reasonable steps to consider the resident’s concerns about the maintenance and alternative options for the water tanks and communicated its views to the resident in a reasonable manner.

Service charges for the water supply

The resident is unhappy with the increase in the service charge for maintaining the water tanks. He submits that an increase from £908.64 in 2015/16 to £2,328.21 in 2019/20 is unreasonable.
The resident has acknowledged that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to determine if service charges are reasonable. This issue falls within the remit of the First Tier Property Tribunal. However, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider whether the landlord has provided reasonable customer service when dealing with the resident’s queries. In this determination the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord appropriately communicated its position.
In its first stage complaint response dated 17 December 2020, the landlord apologised that it was not able to provide information about the cost increase at that time, but it would do so “in the coming weeks”. The landlord later advised that it had provided this information on 17 May 2021. In its second stage complaint response dated 28 October 2021 the landlord has acknowledged that the delay in providing the information was a service failing. It advised the resident that the resident’s complaint about the increase in service charges would need to be taken to the First Tier Property Tribunal.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord did provide the resident with the information he requested. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to the First Tier Property Tribunal to deal with his dissatisfaction with the service charge amount. However, as the landlord acknowledged in its second stage complaint response dated 28 October 2021, there was a service failure in its delay providing the information on the increased service charge. It did not provide the information until May 2021, when it had told the resident it would provide it shortly after Christmas 2020.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord took reasonable steps to provide the resident with the requested information and advise the resident of the appropriate avenue to dispute the service charges. However, it delayed unreasonably in doing so between December 2020 to May 2021. The Ombudsman finds that this was a service failure.

Communication and complaints handling

The resident is dissatisfied with the timing and manner in which the landlord has communicated with him and its complaints handling.
It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s communications between May and September 2021, where the landlord’s communication with the resident was sporadic. These delays will inevitably have caused the resident frustration. However, whilst the Ombudsman has found that there were service failings in the delays with the landlord’s communications and complaints handling, this Service is satisfied that the substantive content of the landlord’s communications with the resident were reasonable
The landlord has offered the resident £100 compensation for the service failings it identified. Whilst it is not entirely clear from the final response letter, it appears that this £100 is compensation for the sporadic communications between May and September 2021 and the delay in providing the information after the first stage complaint response. The Ombudsman has considered whether £100 compensation is appropriate for the identified service failures.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately, the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate.
In considering whether the £100 offered by the landlord in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that awards between £50 to £100 may be appropriate where there has been a service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
In this case, ultimately the landlord communicated its position in a reasonable manner to the resident. It is unlikely that the matter would have been resolved if the delays had not occurred. The Ombudsman is satisfied that £100 is appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused solely by the communications service failings and the landlord has therefore provided reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there has been no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its effective management of water tanks (including maintenance and whether an alternative supply should be provided).
In accordance with section 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress with respect to service failures with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charges.
In accordance with section 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress with respect to service failures in relation to its communication and complaints handling.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to consider the resident’s concerns about maintenance and to communicate its position. The evidence does not indicate that the contractor failed to undertake maintenance. The landlord took reasonable steps to consider the option for connecting to the mains, which the resident proposed, and appropriately communicated to the resident that it did not consider this was a viable option.
Ultimately the landlord did provide the resident with information about the increased service charge. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to the First Tier Property Tribunal to deal with his dissatisfaction with the service charge amount.
There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s progress of the matter and its communication with the resident. However, It is unlikely that the matter would have been resolved if the delays had not occurred. The Ombudsman is satisfied that £100 the landlord has offered is appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused solely by these delays. The landlord has offered reasonable redress.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the resident the compensation of £100 that it offered through its complaints process.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write to the resident to provide more detail on its costings or explain why if it is unable to do so.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations.