Haringey London Borough Council (202203346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203346

Haringey London Borough Council

28 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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about:
1. invoicing;
2. grounds maintenance and outstanding repairs.
The report will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the three bedroom property, which she purchased on 20 March 2020. The landlord/freeholder is a local authority.
The resident pays the landlord a service charge for the maintenance of communal areas and major works to the block. This includes a payment towards a sinking fund, which can be used for major works to the block.
Since the resident approached this Service, the landlord has confirmed it had agreed as a one-off goodwill gesture to pay for the clearance of the two overgrown front gardens the resident had reported.

Policies and procedures

One of the complaints the resident raised was about the condition and upkeep of gardens belonging to other properties on the estate. Under the tenancy agreement, tenants are responsible for maintaining gardens and outside spaces that are included as part of the property. Tenants are expected to cut the grass and weed flower beds. They must also keep any outside spaces clean, tidy, and free from rubbish.
The landlord is responsible, under the lease, for maintaining the outside of the building, the structure, and all communal areas. It is also responsible for maintaining the front and rear entrance doors and windows of each flat. The lease sets out the leaseholder’s responsibility to pay towards the landlord’s costs of carrying out necessary repairs through the service charge, and will provide the leaseholder with an estimate before any work starts.
Under the lease, the leaseholder is required to make contributions to future works. This is referred to as a sinking fund and is designed to avoid the resident receiving a large invoice for major works at some future date. The way the landlord works out the bill for the work is the same way as it works out all service charges. The landlord sends a quarterly invoice to leaseholders for major works, except when the leaseholder pays into a sinking fund, where it will invoice annually on 1 April.
The Repairs Policy lists four categories of repair; out of hours, emergency, agreed appointment and planned. Agreed appointment repairs are those that can be completed in a single visit and the landlord aims to complete these within 28 days. Planned repairs are those where the landlord will pre-inspect the job and where it may take several days to complete. The landlord aims to pre-inspect for planned repairs within 28 days, and tell the resident at the inspection when the job will likely be carried out.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, whereby it will acknowledge stage one complaints within two working days and respond within 10 working days. If the matter remains unresolved, the resident can escalate to the second stage, which the landlord will acknowledge within two working days, and provide a written response within 25 working days. It is noted that the landlord refers to the second stage as an ‘independent review’.

Summary of events

On 10 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the front door to the building was unsecure in its frame, and that the shed door was rotten. The landlord carried out an inspection on 16 September 2020 and agreed the shed door needed to be replaced, and that it would return to take measurements.
On 22 September 2020, the landlord carried out an inspection of the front door, agreed it should be replaced and the operative suggested to the resident that she should raise the matter with the landlord as a health and safety concern. When the resident followed this up, the landlord told her it would contact its Repairs team.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2020 to make a formal complaint, in which she said the following:
1. Since the landlord came to inspect the front door, on 22 September, it had not followed it up or contacted her.
2. Since the landlord came to inspect the shed, on 16 September, nobody had come back to measure the door and she had not been given any updates.
3. She had contacted the landlord on three occasions in October and November 2020 about two unkempt gardens on the block but the landlord had still not responded with an answer to her query.
4. She asked if the windows on the staircase could be cleaned more regularly and stated that the trees in the block needed to be trimmed as they blocked the light and prevented the resident from installing a satellite dish.
5. She had asked for an outstanding invoice for major works and had contacted the landlord on several occasions from July to August 2020 about this, but had still not received anything.
6. She also asked the landlord how often it maintained the green area in between two buildings in the block and said that the bushes were overgrown and that someone had used a table tennis table to support the fence.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 27 November 2020 to discuss her concerns and followed this up on 1 December 2020 with its stage one complaint response, which stated the following:
1. It apologised for the delays in repairing the front door and shed, and for not updating the resident following its inspections in September 2020.
2. It explained that the shed door required a new frame, and brickwork around the front door needed to be repaired. It stated the jobs had been raised and that the landlord would be in touch by 4 December 2020 to let the resident know when the works would be completed.
3. It confirmed that its Tenancy Management Team would write to the properties with the unkempt gardens and provide a deadline by which to carry out the necessary work. It acknowledged that it was the responsibility of tenants to keep their gardens tidy and thanked the resident for reporting the matter.
4. The landlord confirmed that it did not provide window cleaning services throughout any of its blocks.
5. It explained that it inspected the trees outside the block every four years for planned works, as part of its estate tree maintenance programme. As they were last surveyed in January 2017, they were not due to be inspected again until winter 2021.
6. The landlord apologised for the delay in sending the resident her final invoice for major works. It explained that it would issue this once its contractor had provided a final account, which it hoped would be by the end of January 2021. To ensure the resident received her invoice, it said it would check this with its Leasehold team in January 2021 and contact her with an update.
7. It explained that the grass in the communal green space was cut every two weeks in summer and shrubs were trimmed up to twice a year. It assured the resident it would tidy up the bushes within three weeks if weather permitted and confirmed it had removed the table tennis table that was hidden between a fence and shrubs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 December 2020 to thank it for its response and said she hoped the repairs and work to the green space would be completed soon, and that she expected to receive a bill in January 2021. She also raised further questions regarding what action would be taken to address the unkept gardens and to state she was disappointed that the trees were not due to be inspected for a further year.
The landlord responded on 9 December 2020 regarding the unkept gardens and said it would enquire with the relevant teams and come back to her by 15 December 2020. It wrote again on 15 December 2020 to apologise it had not yet been able to provide a response and that it would do so by 18 December 2020.
On 21 December 2020, the resident wrote to landlord to chase up the response to her enquiries and it replied on the same day. It stated that it was still trying to establish which properties the gardens belonged to and explained that, as soon as it had this information, it would send those residents a 28 notice letter to tidy their gardens, and would potentially take stronger action if they did not adhere to the request. The landlord also explained its policy with regard to reduction and removal of trees.
The resident chased the landlord on 22 January 2021 for an update on the points she had raised in her stage one complaint. The landlord responded on 26 January 2021 to ask her to provide specific details on what she felt remained incomplete. The resident responded on the same day to clarify that someone was meant to have contacted her in December 2020 about the repair to the front door and shed. In addition, she stated she was supposed to receive a final major works invoice by the end of that week, and that she wanted an update on what action the landlord was taking to address the unkempt gardens.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord told the resident the work to the shed had been raised and passed to its contractor. It also stated it would make enquiries about the front door, final bill and the gardens, and get back to her with an update.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 5 February 2021 and followed this up in writing on 6 February 2021 with updates regarding the repairs, gardens and communal green space. It stated that:
1. The work to repair the front door had been booked for 5 March 2021.
2. The job to repair the shed had been passed to the landlord’s contractor and they would contact the resident to arrange a convenient time to visit.
3. It confirmed its contract with the current cleaning contractor was under review and that, once this was concluded, the landlord would ask the contractor to provide a quote to clear the gardens.
4. As the weather was wet, it asked the resident to allow it until the end of the month to continue work to clear the overgrown bushes on the green space.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2021 to ask for an update on when the contractor would contact her about the shed and also to enquire about whether the unkempt front gardens were communal.
On 10 February, the landlord responded and stated the following:
1. It would contact the contractor to ask when it planned to get in touch with the resident about the repair to the shed.
2. It had referred the resident’s query about the front gardens to the relevant team and would get back to her with an update.
3. It apologised for the delay in providing a final invoice and stated that this was due to two things. It explained that some of the works had required validation inspections and work to a number of the properties had to be re-scheduled and carried out in 2020. The landlord confirmed both issues were resolved and that the outstanding works would be completed by the end of February 2021.
4. It assured the resident that, once the final account had been reviewed by the landlord’s quantity surveyor, it would issue her with an invoice. It told her that it expected to issue this by the end of April 2021.
On 18 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that nobody had been in touch with her about the shed, the work to the front door had not been completed and she was still waiting for her final invoice. She also reported that there was debris in the green space between the buildings on the estate. The landlord responded on 23 March 2021, apologised for not keeping the resident updated and said it would chase the relevant services for information.
Having not heard back from the landlord, the resident wrote again, on 11 May 2021, to ask it to escalate her complaint, provide her with updates on all the points she had raised and to ask for a discount on her service charge until all the issues were resolved. The resident also wrote to her local councillor the following day to ask for her assistance in pursuing the issues she had raised.
The landlord wrote back on 12 May 2021 to apologise for not getting back with an update. It said it would chase the relevant teams and request a response by 17 May 2021. It also advised the resident that, if she remained unhappy, she could ask the landlord to independently review her complaint.
On 17 May 2021, the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord to ask if it would provide an update and suitable response for the resident and, on the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated the following:
1. It offered the resident £10 compensation for her time and trouble chasing a response.
2. Confirmed the target completion date to repair the shed was 27 May 2021.
3. The front door was secure but warped, and the landlord offered £245 in recognition of the delay of around six months to complete the job. The landlord confirmed that it expected to have a new door made within six to eight weeks and, when it was ready, the Repairs team would contact the resident to arrange a suitable appointment. It asked for the resident’s bank account details so it could pay her the compensation.
4. The landlord asked the contractor to inspect the unkempt gardens with a view to clearing them, and that the tenants in the block had until the end of May 2021 to declare whether or not a garden was allocated to their property.
5. It reiterated the information it had previously provided regarding tree maintenance and removal.
6. It confirmed that the final account had recently been agreed and that it would shortly update the resident as to when she should receive her invoice.
7. If she remained unhappy, she could ask the landlord’s Corporate Feedback Team to independently review her complaint.
The landlord replied to the local councillor on 18 May 2021 and provided the information it had given to the resident in its email of 17 May.
On 20 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord with her bank account details and confirmed she would wait for the landlord to get back to her with information on when she should expect the final invoice.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 May 2021 to let her know it would complete the compensation payment and it had told her local councillor it was still dealing with her complaint. It then wrote to her again on 28 May 2021 to confirm its contractor had arranged an appointment with her to redecorate the shed door and it also asked the resident to send a copy of a bank statement so it could process her compensation payment.
The resident sent the landlord a copy of her bank statement on 8 June 2021 and the landlord wrote back on 16 June 2021 to let her know the compensation payment had been sent to her bank and that it would update her with regard to the other issues.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2021 to ask for an update regarding the front door, shed door, front garden and the final invoice. The landlord responded on 8 September 2021 to tell her it had been chasing updates regarding the invoice and repairs, and that it would contact the relevant member of staff for an update about the front gardens.
On 15 September 2021 the landlord wrote again to explain that its Leasehold team had been delayed in sending out the final bills and it would check again when they were likely to be issued. It added that the work to repair the front door had been given to subcontractors because the operatives were unable to complete part of the job. It stated that it was unable to give a timeframe for completion. It asked the resident to confirm if the work to paint the shed door was still outstanding and confirmed it had still not heard back about the front gardens.
The resident sent a further email on 20 September 2021 regarding the outstanding issues and the landlord replied on 21 September 2021, stating the following:
1. It confirmed its Leasehold team had recently undergone a restructure and did not have the capacity to process the final invoices. It said it would take at least another four weeks for the team to look at the final account and it apologised for the delay.
2. It referred the work to paint the shed door to its Repairs team, who would arrange an appointment.
3. It reiterated that its operatives were unable to carry out the work to replace the front door and the job was on a list of work to be issued to subcontractors. It stated the timeframe for completion of the work was unknown.
4. It had not yet received a response with regard to the front gardens.
5. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the resident with updates.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord sent its final complaint response to the resident and this stated the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing the resident with her final invoice, which it said was due to how staff managed her case. It confirmed that had been issued on 22 October 2021.
2. It confirmed that it had asked its cleaning contractors to provide a quote for the clearance of the two front gardens and it would write to the relevant tenants to ensure the gardens were kept tidy. It acknowledged fault in its communication regarding this matter and extended its apologies for the inconvenience caused.
3. Works to the shed were completed on 19 August 2021 but the door had not been painted at the time due to administrative errors. It noted that it was painted on 5 October 2021.
4. The front door should have been replaced in October 2020 and the resident had been compensated for the delay. The landlord was unable to explain why there was a delay and accepted it was at fault for the way it handled the resident’s complaint and its failure to communicate in a timely manner. It said it would contact the resident within 14 days with an update.
5. The landlord acknowledged that, although it had sent internal chasers, it should have regularly updated the resident with the reasons for any delays. It admitted that these were due to a combination of poor communication, poor co-ordination and administrative errors. It said it had taken some learning from the complaint and raised the issues with the relevant services.
6. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the poor communication, delays in progressing the works and the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord attended the site to start works on replacing the front door.

Assessment and findings

Enquiries about invoicing

According to the landlord’s service charges policy, the resident should have received her final invoice for major works on 1st April 2020; therefore, it was already delayed by around eight months when she made her stage one complaint. The bill was finally issued on 22 October 2021, which meant the resident received it a year and a half after she should have done. The resident was left to constantly chase up this matter, following assurances from the landlord that the bill was likely to be issued shortly after the final account was settled with the contractor in January 2021. The landlord made an undertaking to update the resident in January; however, it was left for the resident to contact the landlord for an update after it had failed to contact her.
There was consistent failure by the landlord to update the resident, even after it had advised her it would get back to her by specific dates. It also failed to manage her expectations or provide consistent reasons for those delays. Each time the resident contacted the landlord, she was given a new date by which she was told her invoice would be ready, only to have to chase the landlord again, once this date had passed. Although there is evidence the landlord made internal enquiries, it consistently neglected to follow those up and waited until the resident got in touch; sometimes months later, until it took any further action.
The correspondence between the resident and landlord shows that the landlord gave conflicting information for why there was a delay. At one point, the landlord told the resident that invoices could not be issued because some of the major works had to be re-scheduled and that outstanding works were due to be completed by the end of February 2021. However, in September 2021, it informed her that the Leasehold team had recently undergone a restructure and that there was no capacity for it to issue invoices. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the landlord for undergoing internal restructuring. However, as the landlord would likely have been aware of a team re-structure in advance, it is unclear why it was unable to inform the resident at the outset that this would likely cause a delay in processing her invoice.. This demonstrates a lack of transparency on the landlord’s part which, again shows a failure to manage the resident’s expectations. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the poor communication, the reliance on the resident to chase for updates, the conflicting information, and lack of transparency would have caused the resident a significant amount of frustration and confusion. There is little doubt the long period of uncertainly would have been distressing for her, particularly as she was seeking to confirm what she owed to the landlord.
While this Service acknowledges the impact its failure had on the resident, the landlord acted fairly in admitting its mistakes and apologising to the resident in its stage two complaint. It endeavoured to put things right by investigating the resident’s concerns and awarding £200 compensation, in addition to the £255 it had previously awarded and paid.

Enquiries about grounds maintenance and outstanding repairs

Following an initial visit by the landlord in September 2020, to inspect for works to a communal shed and front door, it took around 18 months to complete work to the front door and a year to complete work to the shed. There is no indication the landlord gave the resident any estimated completion dates at the time of the inspections, as per its Repairs Policy.
The time taken to complete the works to the front door and shed was far in excess of what would be considered reasonable to complete planned repairs. In addition, it is unclear why, after the inspection of the front door cited a health and safety issue, the work was not prioritised. The landlord failed to take the potential safety issue of a loose front door into account when allocating the work.
The landlord’s communication with regard to the repairs was poor. The resident was left to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and it consistently failed to come back with information, even after it had advised that it would contact the resident by certain dates. The resident’s expectations were poorly managed and she was given various timeframes by which the works would be completed, only later to be given disappointing news that the works could not be done for various reasons. In May 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it was in the process of manufacturing a new door, that it would take about 6 to 8 weeks to complete and that, once the door was ready to install, it would contact the resident directly to arrange a suitable appointment. The landlord failed to get in touch with the resident and, when she chased for an update in September 2021, it informed her that its Repairs team could not complete the work, that it had handed the work to a subcontractor, and that there would be further delays. It is disappointing that this is only one of several examples where the landlord failed to make arrangements to contact the resident, and demonstrates a lack of co-ordination and poor communication between departments.
The landlord acted correctly in providing the resident with detailed information on how it maintains its trees, shortly after she made her complaint. The landlord also acted correctly in quickly taking action to remove the table tennis table from the communal green space and give assurances it would clear the overgrown bushes by the end of December 2020. However, the Ombudsman notes that, in relation to the resident’s enquiries regarding the unkempt front gardens, the resident was again left to chase up her enquiry for over a year before action was finally taken. This is another example of the landlord’s poor communication and failure to update the resident as promised. It is however, positive to note that the landlord agreed to meet the cost of clearing the two unkempt front gardens as a goodwill gesture and undertook, going forward, to ensure the tenants who own the gardens adhere to their responsibilities, as per their tenancy agreements.
The landlord was at fault for not providing clear, accurate and up-to-date information, and for failing to contact the resident when it said it would. It is disappointing that the information the resident received was generally forthcoming only when she chased the landlord for updates. This is despite the fact the landlord advised the resident, on several occasions, that it would put a reminder in its diary to contact her. Although there is evidence the landlord made internal enquiries whenever the resident made contact, the landlord failed to follow those enquiries up. It is positive to note that the landlord apologised for its failings, and paid the resident compensation of £255 in May 2021, for delays, poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble.

Complaint handling

The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 11 May 2021 and only received a final response on 1 November 2021, around seven months later. The response, which the landlord refers to as an ‘independent review’ did not provide a reason for the delay or an apology.
The landlord’s email of 17 May 2021, where it awarded compensation, did not make clear whether this was part of the complaints process. It did not refer to a process stage or provide details on how the resident can escalate her concerns, which would have caused confusion as to whether or not this was the landlord’s stage two response. According to the landlord’s complaints process, it has two stages and therefore it can only be concluded that the letter of 1 November 2021, referred to as the ‘independent review’, was the stage two response. It is clear the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint was confusing and it gave no clarity to the resident as to how it was dealing with her complaint after she asked to escalate it. It did not acknowledge her stage two request or tell her that the response would be delayed. It is clear the landlord did not comply with its own complaint procedures or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and this was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s enquiries about invoicing.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s enquiries about maintenance and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

Enquiries about invoicing

The landlord’s poor communication meant it failed to properly inform the resident about when she would receive her final invoice, and she was left to chase the landlord herself for any updates. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it has attempted to put things right and has offered £200 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is proportionate to the impact on the resident.

Enquiries about ground maintenance and outstanding repairs

The repairs took an excessive amount of time to complete and the delay in repairing the unsecure front door was a potential health and safety risk. The landlord consistently gave timescales it never met and failed to manage the resident’s expectations over a significant period of time. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it has attempted to put things right and has paid £255 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is proportionate to the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to follow its complaints process or comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £555, comprising:
1. £455 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its the poor communication, lack of updates and delays to repairs;
2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £455. The Ombudsman notes the landlord has already paid £255 to the resident. The remaining amount of £300 must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach and ensuring that it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around the landlord’s complaint handling in this report, but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall review of its approach to complaint handling.
The landlord to review its systems for updating residents to ensure enquiries are followed up in a timely manner and fed back to residents accordingly.
To ensure that, when health and safety issues are raised in respect of certain repairs, the work is prioritised accordingly.