Haringey London Borough Council (202206204)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206204

Haringey London Borough Council

18 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to:
1. the roof;
2. her bathroom;
3. a garden fence.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since September 2018. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a first-floor flat in a converted terrace house.
The landlord’s repair handbook notes that it is responsible for repairs to the roof of the property. Roof leaks or issues with tiling or extractor fans will be attended to within 28 days. Issues that cause a person or property to be at risk will be attended to within 24 hours. Regarding leaks, the landlord’s policy notes that “we understand how stressful this is, so now we are being much firmer on this.” It also notes that the landlord will keep a resident informed throughout the repairs procedure.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy

Summary of events

It is not disputed that in or around June 2021, the resident reported missing roof tiles at her property. This led to a leak into her kitchen. Following her reports, the landlord arranged for its operatives to attend the property. The operatives determined that scaffolding was required and that the landlord’s roofing contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange it.
This did not occur, and so the resident chased an update approximately one month later. The landlord’s operatives returned and again determined that scaffolding was necessary and that the roofing contractor would contact the resident. The resident chased this up on 31 October 2021 and again on 4 November 2021. The landlord explained that it had been unable to contact the neighbour living in the downstairs flat to arrange access, and so no further action had been taken.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 November 2021 about the delay to the works and the landlord’s poor communication. She also noted the leak was entering into an area with wiring, which was causing her safety concerns. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 15 December 2021.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 12 January 2022, which included the following:
1. It noted that its response had been delayed as it needed extra time to investigate the issue.
2. Regarding delays to the repairs, it noted its repairs team leader was away, and so it had been unable to determine a reason for the delays. It nevertheless apologised for the delays.
3. It confirmed the works had now been booked to commence on 31 January 2022, and that an electrician had also been booked to attend on 7 February 2022 to assess the wiring.
On 21 January 2022, the resident reported concerns about mould in her bathroom. She noted that the bathroom fixtures and tiling were in a poor state of repair and that the extractor fan was not working. She also provided photos to demonstrate this.
On 8 February 2022, the resident confirmed that the roof had been fixed but noted that the scaffolding had been left in place, which impacted the light entering the property.
On 17 February 2022, the resident raised a further formal complaint about the mould and state of repair of her bathroom. She had not received a reply to her reports despite chasing an update on 4 and 11 February 2022. She had also called on 14 February 2022 and had been promised a call back but did not receive one. She also reiterated that the scaffolding had still not been removed and requested an update.
On 21 February 2022, the resident noted the scaffolding was still up and expressed concerns about safety given the stormy weather. She also reported concerns about further tiles falling down and further leaks entering her kitchen. She repeated these concerns on 28 February 2022 and again on 8 March 2022; however, the landlord did not respond.
On 10 March 2022, the resident reported issues with pests caused by her neighbour’s recently installed chicken coop. She advised that the coop attracted foxes. She also advised that the neighbour’s fence was broken, which allowed the foxes to climb the scaffolding and cause damage to her balcony.
She made a further complaint on 24 March 2022 as she had not received any response regarding her concerns about the scaffolding or the broken garden fence.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 13 April 2022, which included the following:
1. It noted that the scaffolding had now been removed. It acknowledged that it had failed to contact her neighbour as part of the removal, which had led to the delay, for which it apologised.
2. It noted the resident’s reports of new leaks and advised that its contractor would investigate.
3. Regarding her bathroom, it noted that some works had been completed and that further works would be carried out in the next four weeks to address the tiles.
4. It noted the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s fence and that an inspection would be arranged, but it did not have a date yet. The landlord did not comment on the chicken coop.
The resident chased updates on the outstanding works on 23 May 2022, but it is not evident she received a response. On 10 June 2022, she noted there had been unannounced visits on 9 and 13 May 2022 regarding the leaks, but that no works had commenced and no scaffolding had been erected. She further noted that no works to the bathroom had taken place. Finally, she advised that she had reported the chicken coop to the local authority’s environmental health team, but had not heard back.
The landlord advised on 21 June 2022 that it had raised all outstanding issues with its repairs team; however, as of 27 October 2022, the resident advised this service that all works remained outstanding.
The resident has since advised this service that while some works were subsequently carried out to the roof, the leaks continue, and she has not received any further updates since her most recent reports.
The resident has further advised that while the landlord completed works to her tiling, sink, and toilet, the landlord did not complete any mould wash, despite assuring her it would and her requesting updates. She eventually completed the mould wash herself; however, the issue has since returned.
Regarding the damaged fence, the resident has advised that an operative inspected the fence in September 2022 and confirmed it would be repaired. However, no works have been completed.

Assessment and findings

Roof

As noted above, the landlord has an obligation to repair any leaks to the roof within 28 days of a report. The Ombudsman notes that it may be the case that a repair cannot reasonably be completed within this timeframe if specialist equipment, such as scaffolding, is required. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect a landlord to keep a resident reasonably informed throughout and to provide updated timeframes if a repair is delayed. This is echoed in the landlord’s repair policy, which also states that the landlord will keep a resident informed throughout the repair procedure.
This service has not been provided with the resident’s initial report of the roof leak, nor is it noted in any of the landlord’s records. However, the landlord’s stage one response refers to the resident having initially made the report in June 2021. It is not disputed that following her reports, the landlord arranged for its operatives to carry out an inspection. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect; however, it is not evident this occurred within the timeframes noted in the landlord’s policy.
The operatives determined that scaffolding would be required and informed her that the roofing contractor would contact her directly. It is not evident that the operatives gave her a timeframe for this contact, which would have left the resident unclear when the issue would be resolved.
Having received no contact, the resident chased an update, which led to the landlord repeating its earlier steps and carrying out a further inspection. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to have robust records of its actions. In this case, it is evident it had not made any record of its earlier inspection, which meant it had to unnecessarily repeat its earlier actions. This caused an unreasonable delay to the repairs, which could have been avoided had it kept accurate records. Once again, it is not evident that the landlord provided the resident with a timeframe for contact from the scaffolder.
As part of her formal complaint, the resident also raised safety concerns about the leak, given that it was leaking into electrical wiring. It is not evident, however, that the landlord sought to raise any inspections, urgent or otherwise, to address her safety concerns.
The Ombudsman would expect a formal complaint response to be provided within a reasonable timeframe following a complaint, typically 10 working days. In this case, the landlord’s formal response did not come for over six weeks. The landlord explained this was due to needing additional time to investigate the resident’s complaint. However, in its response, it advised that it had been unable to effectively investigate the complaint as its head of repairs was away. It is therefore unclear what additional investigation the landlord carried out. While it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its delay, its complete lack of an explanation would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord did, however, provide indicative timeframes for both the roof works to commence and for an inspection of her wiring; however, it is unclear why it did not treat this with more urgency given her safety fears.
It is evident that scaffolding was erected and the roof was repaired as set out in the landlord’s stage one response. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to communicate with a resident when the scaffolding will be removed, which should be within a reasonable period following the completion of the repair. It is not evident the landlord did this, despite nine requests for updates. The resident has advised this service that when she called the landlord, no one was aware of the issue, and the landlord indicated it did not have any records relating to the repairs. The landlord also promised her it would call back but did not do so. This would have caused her distress and led to her expending time and trouble chasing updates on multiple occasions.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that the removal of the scaffolding had been delayed due to its failure to contact the neighbour for access. While it apologised for this failure, it did not offer an explanation or consider any compensation for its unreasonable delay.
As part of her request for an update in February 2022, the resident reported further leaks into her property from the roof. It is evident that at this time, the scaffolding was still up. This would have made it easy for the landlord to carry out an inspection and any further works in a timely manner. Despite this, however, it is evident that the landlord then removed the scaffolding without carrying out any further inspections (which were not arranged until its stage two response in April 2022, which was outside its timeframe for repairs). This demonstrates a failure in the landlord’s record keeping, which should have allowed the repair team to see there was scaffolding in place and cancel its removal. Its failure to do so unreasonably added to the delay to further repairs.
The landlord did not provide a timeframe for its inspection into the new leaks, despite the resident’s request for an update. As noted above, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a resident informed about its repair efforts, including providing notice of any inspections. It is evident, however, that the landlord’s operatives attended on two occasions in May 2022 unannounced, which would have been frustrating for the resident and had the potential to add to the delays had she not been available at the time of the visit.
Despite the landlord’s assurances in June 2022 that all repairs had been raised, it is evident that no works had been carried out as of October 2022. The landlord did not provide any updates during this time, which added to the resident’s distress and led her to have to chase further updates until the works were eventually attended to in late 2022.
In summary, throughout this case, the landlord’s repeated delays, poor record keeping, and poor communication have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. These failings amount to maladministration in the circumstances for which compensation is appropriate.
At the time of the resident’s report, she informed the landlord that the leaks were impacting her ability to enjoy her kitchen, given that the leaks were entering into the cooking area. As noted above, while the landlord’s policy notes that repairs for such as leaks will be attended to within 28 days, longer may be reasonable if scaffolding needs to be arranged, as was the case here. The landlord failed, however, to keep the resident informed of when such scaffolding would be erected, despite two inspections by its operatives, and the resident giving it the opportunity to update her in October 2021. Compensation for the loss of amenity of the resident’s kitchen will therefore be calculated from October 2021.
While the roof repairs were carried out in January 2022, the works would not be considered complete until the scaffolding was removed, as this continued to cause inconvenience for the resident. It is not evident that the scaffolding was removed until approximately April 2022. There was therefore a period of six months where the works were unreasonably delayed. The resident pays rent of £474.45 per month. For the loss of amenity caused by the delays, compensation of £569.34 has been ordered, being 20% of the resident’s rent for this period.
An order for additional compensation for the landlord’s delays, poor communication, and poor record keeping across all the elements of the complaint has been made below to reflect the impact caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman further notes that the resident is currently experiencing a leak from the roof which she has reported to the landlord. A recommendation has therefore been made that the landlord respond to her reports and arrange any necessary inspections and subsequent works.

Bathroom

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that issues such as a broken extractor fan or broken tiling will be attended to within 28 days. It is not evident that the landlord has a specific policy regarding mould; however, its policy does note that issues that cause a person or property to be at risk will be attended to within 24 hours.
The resident reported these issues in January 2022 and also provided photographic evidence depicting mould in some areas of the bathroom. While it is not evident that the mould was extensive, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect a landlord to demonstrate it had thoroughly inspected the issue in order to reach a conclusion about the risk. It is not evident this occurred, and the resident had to expend time and effort chasing a reply on three occasions. The landlord did not reply, despite its telephone operative promising a phone call. This led her to raise a formal complaint, at which time the landlord’s 28 day window to take action had expired.
Given that the bathroom issues had been reported after the landlord’s stage one response, it would have been reasonable for it to have opened a new complaint. However, it included these concerns in its stage two response in order to provide a more timely resolution. This was an appropriate use of its discretion.
By the time of its stage two response in April 2022, the landlord had carried out an inspection of the property in March 2022 but advised that the works were still four weeks away. This means that there would be a total of four months between her report and the works being completed, without any reasonable explanation.
Despite its promises to complete works to the bathroom in May 2022, the landlord failed to contact the resident to arrange any works, despite her requests for updates. These works remained outstanding beyond October 2022. The resident has advised this service that when she called for updates, she was repeatedly told that there were no outstanding repairs logged on the landlord’s system and that no one was willing to take ownership of the issue.
Additionally, while the landlord eventually completed works to the tiling, sink, and toilet, it did not complete any mould wash, despite this having been something she had complained about approximately 11 months previously. This led the resident to have to arrange for her own works to address the mould at her own expense.
The landlord’s failure to take action regarding the bathroom works for a significantly extended period without explanation, adequate investigations, or reasonable communication amounted to maladministration in the circumstances.
Given that these repairs should reasonably have been completed within 28 days of the resident’s reports, there was approximately a 10 month delay to the works being completed, during which time the resident’s use of her bathroom would have been diminished. An order for compensation of £948.90 has been made, being 20% of the resident’s rent for this period, to reflect this loss of amenity.
An order has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident to enquire about any ongoing issues with mould in her bathroom. Should the resident have any ongoing issues, the landlord is to carry out inspections and any subsequent treatment as an urgent repair.

Fence

The resident reported concerns about the damage to her neighbour’s fence after the landlord had issued its stage one response. The landlord, however, appropriately used its discretion to include this concern in its stage two response.
The resident’s neighbour is a leaseholder. It is not known if the conditions of the neighbour’s lease allow them to keep chickens, whether this would require permission, or whether the landlord provided such permission. However, given that the resident expressed concern about foxes attracted by the chicken coop, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide its position on what, if anything, it could do to address this issue. This could have included referring the issue to the local authority’s environmental team. The landlord did not offer any position or advice, however.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has independently referred her concern to the local authority, but that the local authority has not responded or taken any action. The actions of the local authority are outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue a complaint against the local authority, she may be able to do so through the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Regardless of whether the neighbour was permitted to have a chicken coop or not, the resident reported that the issue with the resultant foxes was exacerbated by a broken fence between the neighbour’s garden and an area of the garden used by the resident. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for repairing the fence. Having been made aware of the repair in March 2022, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out an inspection and complete any necessary repairs within 28 days, as per the landlord’s policy. However, it is not evident that the landlord carried out any inspection or works within this timeframe, despite the resident chasing it up two weeks later.
In its stage two response, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that works to repair the fence would be completed. The landlord did not give a timeframe for these works, which it acknowledged in its response. While it may be reasonable not to have a date for inspection immediately available, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to follow this up within a reasonable timeframe. However, as with repairs to the bathroom, the landlord did not provide any further updates despite multiple requests from the resident.
The resident has advised that the landlord carried out an inspection in September 2022, but that to date, no further works have been completed. This demonstrates a significant delay in any resolution, far beyond what is required by its policy. This would also have caused significant distress for the resident, given that the landlord raised her hopes of a repair in April 2022, but the works remain incomplete some 13 months later.
This significant delay, along with the landlord’s poor communication, amounts to maladministration in the circumstances, for which compensation is appropriate.
While the damage to the resident’s fence would not have had a significant to her day to day use of the property, it nevertheless impacted her overall enjoyment of the property over an extend period. Therefore compensation of £308.39 has been ordered, being 5% of the resident’s rent for the 13 months the repairs have remained outstanding.
An order has also been made for the landlord to complete the repairs to the fence within four weeks of the date of this determination.
In addition to compensation for the loss of amenity as set out above, a further amount of £1,750 has been ordered, which is broken down as follows:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its unreasonable delays to the repairs and to its subsequent removal of the scaffolding.
2. £500 for the landlord’s poor communication regarding the repairs, including its failure to respond to the resident’s requests for updates, or provide the promised call backs. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s service delivery in this case has been in direct contrast to the approach it promises in its repairs policy regarding communication where there is a leak.
3. £500 for its poor record keeping, including its failure to correctly log repairs, despite having promised to do so in its formal responses.
4. £250 for its poor investigation of the resident’s concerns, including the delay to its stage one response in order to carry out additional investigations, only to offer no explanation due to staff absences.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord for its response to the resident’s reports about repairs to:
1. the roof;
2. her bathroom;
3. a garden fence.

Reasons

Roof

While the landlord appropriately carried out an initial inspection of the roof, it then unreasonably delayed in arranging for scaffolding, despite repeat attendances and multiple requests for updates from the resident. It also failed to adequately investigate the reason for this delay as part of its complaint response.
Having completed the repairs, the landlord then failed to remove the scaffolding for an unreasonable period, causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Bathroom

The landlord failed to carry out a timely inspection of the issues reported by the resident. While it committed to the works in its stage two response, it failed to correctly record these leading to further delays and considerable time, trouble and inconvenience for the resident chasing them up.

Fence

The landlord failed to complete the works within the timeframes noted in its repairs policy, despite having promised to do so in its stage two response. While it completed an inspection, the works remain incomplete to date.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £3,576.63 to reflect the loss of amenity, and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as set out above.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to enquire about any ongoing issues with mould in her bathroom. Should the resident have any ongoing issues, the landlord is to carry out inspections and any subsequent treatment as an urgent repair.

Recommendations

The landlord is to respond to the resident’s recent reports regarding ongoing leaks within four weeks of the date of this determination, and arrange any necessary inspections and subsequent works.