Haringey London Borough Council (202218553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218553

Haringey London Borough 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress which led to damp and mould in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat on the second and third floors of a block.
4. The lease, which constitutes the contract between the parties, sets out the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the building such as the roof and external walls.
5. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, with an optional third stage that involves a review by a resident panel.

Summary of events

6. HiOn 25 January 2022, the resident reported a leak into the property, after which operatives who attended said the issue needed an inspection by a roofer. The landlord’s records suggest a works order for this was raised on 7 February 2022, following which a roofer attended on 29 March 2022 and said scaffold was needed to do the inspection.
7. In April 2022, the scaffold request was referred internally. The same month, the resident says the electrics in the property were damaged by water ingress, and had to be rewired; he made a formal complaint; and he made an insurance claim, which he was informed could not be progressed until the repair was confirmed to be complete. The landlord also noted reports from the resident that walls were now cracking; plaster was falling off the walls; and although he was using a dehumidifier, his chest was now wheezing due to the damp in the rooms.
8. In May 2022, the contractor noted their subcontractor had reported they had been unable to erect scaffold. The contractor noted the subcontractor had said a special design scaffold was required, which the contractor had requested from the subcontractor. This was not forthcoming and in June and July 2022, the landlord chased its contractor, asking for the design scaffold to be submitted for cost approval.
9. On 5 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the roof repair still being ongoing six months after being reported. He said:
   1. He had reported a water leak in January 2022 which inspections had confirmed was coming from the roof. He was informed scaffold would be erected in both June and July 2022, but this had not occurred and roofers had recently attended and reported that there was no scaffold.
   2. The water ingress into the building had continued as a result. This had led to the electrical cabling degrading and the flat having to be rewired; walls/paintwork becoming damaged; and a bedroom becoming seriously damp and affecting his health.
   3. He was currently carrying over £2,000 of debt, as he could not claim on the landlord’s insurance until it had completed the work.
10. On 19 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response.
    1. It noted that it was notified of a leak on 25 January 2022 and the following day, a plumber reported that its roofing team needed to investigate a roof defect. Its roofing team inspected on 29 March 2022 (due to an appointments backlog) and noted that scaffold was needed to access the roof. Its contractor was asked to erect scaffold but this was not fulfilled in a timely manner, which meant its roofers could not assess or carry out any works at a visit on 5 July 2022.
    2. It said that its contractor had had to design the scaffold tower due to the layout of the building. It said that it had approved this and requested for the scaffold to be urgently erected by a scheduled roofing inspection on 17 August 2022.
    3. It apologised for failing to provide a good service and for frustration and inconvenience caused by the leak. It noted that its contractor accepted that the time to erect the scaffold fell below the service expected and also extended their apology.
    4. It acknowledged the impact the issue was having on the resident, his property and his insurance claim, and said that it was happy to provide any information to assist with the claim once the issue was resolved.
11. On 22 August 2022, the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He said that he had sent emails since 15 August 2022 to inform the landlord that no scaffold had been erected, but had received no response. He expressed frustration that the issue had now been ongoing for over six months, and expressed frustration that he had been unable to arrange repairs himself soon after the issue arose, to contain the damage.
12. On 27 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response.
    1. It apologised for a lack of response to the resident’s emails and said these had been discussed internally to improve service.
    2. It said that the works had been assigned to its contractors but their contract had expired, so it was now considering an alternative remedial plan. It said that it was unable to provide a date for the repair as scaffold first needed to be erected, and it did not currently have any contractors that could erect scaffold at the property.
    3. It said that staff had been asked to keep the resident updated and it provided their details.
    4. It said that the resident could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman or have it considered by a resident panel.
13. On 17 October 2022, the resident says that he raised his complaint to the resident panel. The same month, he also attended a housing ‘surgery,’ where he chased the repair and reported that the leak was still present.
14. On 3 November 2022, the landlord internally noted that the specification for the scaffold had been determined and the same day, it raised a works order to erect scaffold as per a description and diagram to allow two working platforms, one at roof level, and one six feet below roof level for mansard tiles. It was noted that its contractor had been asked to erect the scaffold as soon as possible, and that the repairs would proceed subject to the scaffold erection. The information provided suggests that the repair was raised to the same contractor as before.
15. On 11 November 2022, the resident received a final response after consideration of the complaint by the resident panel.
    1. The panel said that while the landlord had upheld the complaint and apologised for its service failings, it was unacceptable that a date for the repair could not be provided and that there was no contractors to erect scaffold at the property. The panel said it was also disappointed that at that time, the landlord was unable to provide any updates about the repair and to enable the resident to claim his expenses through insurance. The panel said that they had no power to force the landlord to immediately erect scaffold, and recommended the resident to contact this Service.
    2. The panel said they had found serious failures in the landlord’s response to the complaint and recommended a discretionary payment of £352. It said that this had been calculated using a formula for priority A repairs (in its compensation policy) and broke this down as:
       1. £10 one-off payment.
       2. £42 for a 21 day period, at £2 per day, from 29 March to 18 April 2022.
       3. £300 for a 30 week period, at £10 per week, from 19 April to 13 November 2022.
    3. The panel apologised that they were not able to resolve the matter. They said that they hoped that the landlord would take a serious look at its housing service and management of contracts, to ensure that necessary contracts were in place to carry out essential repairs (such as contracts to erect scaffold in order to repair leaking roofs).
16. In further correspondence to the landlord, the resident raised dissatisfaction about the repair being outstanding despite being upheld at each stage of the complaints procedure. He emphasised his incurred expenditure and how he could not make an insurance claim until the repair was done. He said that his bedroom was virtually ruined since the weather had begun to ‘turn,’ and that water was now running down the inside of walls; a door was so warped it would not close; and blinds and skirting were ruined. He said that a wardrobe was damp, the humidity in the room had shot up, and a dehumidifier that was meant to fill up in about three weeks was filling up every five days. He said that sleeping in a humid and cold bedroom was not good for him and was directly affecting his health, and he raised concern that it would be shortly uninhabitable.
17. The landlord has internally noted that between around June and August 2022, it had no lead staff for roofing issues. It has also noted that from around July 2022, its contractors “refused or rejected” works beyond scaffold erection. The landlord says that it subsequently escalated matters with its contractor and subcontractor in respect to getting a ‘final answer’ on the design scaffold, and they refused to erect scaffold due to a dispute with the landlord. The landlord says that it consequently cancelled the scaffold order and began a process to onboard a new contractor.
18. On 22 November 2022, the landlord emailed the new contractor and asked it to urgently survey the property to remedy leaks from the roof. It noted that its operatives had inspected in the first instance and identified a probable leak from the roof above and/or from ‘mansard’ slates at the front elevation. It enclosed a diagram for the likely scaffold erection and asked the contractor to supply the quote as soon as possible so that it could authorise the works to proceed.
19. On 25 November 2022, the landlord received a quote from the new contractor to erect scaffold; complete repairs using torch-on felt; and test the repairs.
20. On 7 or 8 December 2022, scaffold was erected. The same month, the roof was inspected; the balcony was identified as the source of the leak; and some temporary repairs were carried out.
21. On 11 January 2023, the landlord post-inspected and asked the new contractor to complete some follow-on repairs, which included renewing some asphalt on a balcony, and replacing and refitting some mansard slate tiles.
22. In February 2023, the follow-on works were completed by the new contractor; post-inspected by the landlord on 24 February 2023; and confirmed to be complete on 2 March 2023.
23. On 9 March 2023, the landlord supplied the details of the repairs completion to its insurer. The resident says that prior to this, the insurer’s surveyor attended and the insurer subsequently emailed on 25 March 2023 to say the landlord needed to investigate further. The resident reports that on 5 April 2023, landlord staff attended with a view to organising ‘clean up work’ for mould. He says that the staff said that the mould was ‘category A’ and needed to be cleared without delay.
24. The resident says that he has incurred costs of over £4,300 that he would not have otherwise incurred, which includes costs for rewiring the property; costs to replace a fridge freezer that was damaged when the electrics were affected; and costs for dehumidifiers to control damp due to the water ingress. He says that damage was also caused to decorations, fixtures and fittings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress which led to damp and mould in the property

25. The landlord is obligated to maintain and repair the structure of the building, while the resident as a leaseholder is responsible for the internal decoration of his flat. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs complaints, published in 2019, sets out a range of best practice for landlords when dealing with repairs and complaints about them, which includes carrying out works in reasonable timescales; updating residents about outstanding actions and timescales; considering compensation; and identifying learning to improve service going forward. In addition to this, our spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 said landlords should have zero-tolerance to damp issues and overall deal with such issues in a timely manner. In this case, the evidence shows that there was a lengthy delay in the landlord meeting its obligation to carry out the repair, and a failure to handle matters in line with good practice set out above.
26. The evidence shows that following the resident’s report of water ingress in January 2022, repairs were not carried out until December 2022 and February 2023. This was eleven and thirteen months after the resident originally reported the issue. It is noted that the landlord had shortages in relevant staff, and contractors contributed to the delay in the erection of scaffold, but the overall timeframe of the repairs is not appropriate. The landlord is expected to be able to effect repairs in reasonable timeframes, and to be able to respond effectively to situations where a contractor is repeatedly not facilitating this. The landlord’s stage two response indicates that some delay was also due to the expiry of contractor contracts, and it would be expected to have the processes in place to anticipate and avoid interruption to service delivery during any contract changes.
27. The resident has provided an inventory of damage caused by the issue and of the costs which he would not have otherwise incurred, and it is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about insurance claims and liability. However, while the landlord appropriately made commitments to provide information to assist with an insurance claim once the issue was resolved, it is clear that the length of time it took to resolve the issue was unreasonable. This will have had an ongoing impact on the resident’s insurance claim and his ability to try to reclaim for costs and damage in relation to the issue, which is not satisfactory.
28. The resident has raised concern about the impact of the ongoing repair on his health, and while it is also not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about this, it is not satisfactory that the landlord was not prompted to focus on resolving matters in a timely and effective way from the resident’s reports, which included a report in April 2022 of the resident’s chest now wheezing due to the damp. The landlord did not complete the works until ten months after this report. The resident’s report that in April 2023, landlord staff described mould issues at the property as ‘category A’ and as requiring remedy without delay, reinforces the impact that the repairs delays will have had on the property and the resident.
29. The landlord’s stage one response acknowledged and apologised for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, but the landlord’s overall recognition of these was limited and did not go far enough. The landlord should have considered compensation given that six months had passed since the resident’s report by its July 2022 response, and eight months had passed by its September 2022 response. The resident panel made a compensation calculation based on the landlord’s compensation policy in their November 2022 complaint review, which was positive, however, in the Ombudsman’s view this did not go far enough given the length of time the issue was ongoing and the distress and inconvenience that will have been caused to the resident.
30. The resident will have been caused substantial distress and inconvenience by the ongoing nature of the water ingress, the repair delay and the landlord’s handling. The issue will have impacted the resident’s living environment and will likely have had some effect on his health. The issue will have impacted his ability to carry out any lasting internal repairs for any damage caused by the issue, and to progress an insurance claim for the damage and his reported incurred costs of over £3,000. The distress and inconvenience from the above will have been exacerbated by poor communication to the resident which led to his repeated chasing. The above is not satisfactory, and leads the Ombudsman to find severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress which led to damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

31. The landlord responded in a reasonably timely manner based on the evidence that the resident first complained in July 2022, but it is noted that the resident says he initially complained in April 2022. This is not specifically evident, but this would mean that the landlord’s stage one response was potentially delayed by two months, which would not be appropriate. However, the complaints procedure should be a means by which a landlord provides a tangible resolution and takes other appropriate steps to put things right, which the landlord does not demonstrate it took appropriate opportunity to do.
32. The complaint was upheld at all three stages of the complaints procedure, but as noted in the assessment of the substantive issue, no compensation was awarded by the landlord itself, and it was the resident panel that calculated an award using the landlord’s compensation policy. This is not satisfactory, as the landlord itself should have considered compensation for the impact of the delay on the resident.
33. There was also no clear and tangible solution provided in the later stages of the complaints procedure. While it is recognised that the landlord faced some challenges, this is not satisfactory. The resident was informed that alternative remedial plans were being considered, but the issue had been ongoing for eight months by the stage two response, and ten months by the stage three response – giving some time to consider solutions – therefore these responses should have provided more detail about the intended actions to resolve matters. The responses provided limited assurances however, and the responses conveyed a general powerlessness of the complaints procedure, and the landlord’s residents, to have a meaningful and timely impact on complaints and service delivery. The resident’s distress and inconvenience will have been exacerbated by the inefficacy of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is counter to what a complaints procedure should aim to achieve, and will have significantly undermined the resident’s confidence about a resolution being provided. The above is not satisfactory, and leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
34. The Ombudsman notes that while the landlord’s third stage is optional, our Complaint Handling Code says that a complaint procedure should ideally only contain two stages, and if it is strongly believed that a third stage is necessary, a landlord must set out their reasons for this as part of their self-assessment. The Ombudsman notes that in November 2022, the landlord carried out a self-assessment against the Code but did not set out why it strongly believes a third stage is necessary. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s website says that requesting a review by the resident panel will allow a complainant to refer a complaint to us without having to wait eight weeks to do this directly. The Ombudsman notes that we removed the requirement for a complainant to wait eight weeks before they could refer a complaint directly to us, in October 2022. In this case the resident seems to have escalated his complaint to the resident panel in October 2022 partially so that he could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman, when he was able to bring the complaint to us directly at that time. The Ombudsman therefore makes some recommendations in respect to this.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress which led to damp and mould in the property.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

37. The landlord took eleven and thirteen months to carry out any repairs for the ongoing water ingress issue that led to damp and mould at the property. This delay will have had an ongoing impact on the resident’s living conditions and caused understandable concern about the impact on his health; impacted the resident’s insurance claim and ability to repair his home; and led to significant distress and inconvenience.
38. While this was awarded by a resident panel, the landlord itself should have considered compensation for the impact of the delays on the resident. The complaint responses provided no clear and tangible solutions, which will have significantly undermined the resident’s confidence about a resolution being imminent, and raise concern about the ability of the landlord’s complaints procedure to have a meaningful impact on complaints and service delivery.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. The landlord to, within four weeks of this decision, apologise to the resident in line with the approach detailed on page 6 of our remedies guidance.
40. The landlord to, within four weeks of this decision, pay the resident £1,300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him. This comprises £1,000 for the repairs issues identified, and £300 for the complaint handling issues identified. This includes the £352 awarded at stage three, which can be deducted from the above amount if already paid.
41. The landlord to, within four weeks of this decision, liaise with the resident to ensure that:
    1. all information required by the insurer to progress his claim has been supplied to him.
    2. all action required by the insurer to progress his claim, such as any further investigation, has been taken.
42. The landlord to, within six weeks of this decision, review the scaffold/repairs delays and consider what processes and contingencies can be put in place to ensure that repairs progress and are not significantly delayed when similar issues arise, including during any periods of contract expiry and contract transitions.

Recommendations

43. The landlord to review the status of the damp and mould remedial works indicated in early April 2023 and update the resident about the status of these, if it has not already.
44. The landlord to carry out a further self-assessment against our Complaint Handling Code, in which it sets out why it strongly believes its optional third complaint stage is necessary.
45. The landlord to review the complaints information on its website to ensure this provides a clear complaints journey for its housing residents, and contains current information about a complainant’s right to immediately bring a complaint directly to the Ombudsman when they have received a stage two response.
46. The Ombudsman has recently made a number of other orders and recommendations in other investigations to the landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach and its repairs service, including its approach to 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.
47. The landlord to, within four weeks of this decision, inform the Ombudsman of its intentions in respect to the above recommendations.