Haringey London Borough Council (202204505)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204505

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 of repairs at her property and her concerns regarding related service charges and the length of time scaffolding was in place.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied the property under a lease which she and her partner purchased together on 2 December 2019. The resident will be referred to collectively as “the resident” and “she” except where the joint leaseholder took specific action. At the time of the complaints, the landlord services were being delivered by an ALMO (Arm’s Length Management Organisation). This report will only differentiate the ALMO from the landlord when the context requires it.

Legal and policy framework

Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to maintain and repair the structure of the building in which her flat was situated, including the roof and external walls. It was not disputed this also included the doors and external step. The resident was obliged to pay service charges in respect of a proportion of the costs for the maintenance and repairs.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints process but the resident was entitled to refer her complaint to a third stage panel.

Chronology

On or around 9 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. Scaffolding at the back of the property had been in place since approximately September 2019 in relation to a problem with the roof and resulting damp/cracks to the side of the property. She had yet to see any work take place on the scaffolding. The problem had worsened over the course of the previous year. She attached photographs which, as far as the Ombudsman could discern, showed cracks in the bathroom wall and water damage above the shower.
2. She had been unable to renovate the bathroom in the meantime. She was concerned about the impact on the resale price and on service charges. The lease stated that the doors/windows/exterior walls were the responsibility of the landlord, indicating repairs were required. She had chased the landlord a number of times. She had not received a response. She said that she understood there had been exceptional circumstances due to the pandemic. However, the issue had predated Covid-19. She was concerned at the lack of communication, given there was two-storey scaffolding at her property.
On 25 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s councillor as follows:
1. It apologised for its lack of communication and the mismanagement of the works that had caused damage to the resident’s property. Following a surveyor’s inspection, works had been identified on the roof of neighbouring flat. Scaffolding had been erected to carry out the works in 2019. Following the erection of scaffolding in, the repairs works were not passed to its roofing contractors, causing a delay in resolving the issue and further damage.
2. It accepted that this level of communication did not meet the service levels it aimed at. The resident had not received any update about these works. It would use this as an opportunity to improve its processes and procedures.
3. The job had not been deemed an emergency and works would resume once “normal working is instructed by government”. It would then be prioritised.
4. If the resident was concerned about the safety implications of the scaffolding being erected, it would remove it and re-erect it at no expense to the residents. It would not charge for the period of time for which it had been erected.
On 10 February 2021, the resident made a formal complaint as follows:
1. She set out the issues as above.
2. She set out the number of occasions she had contacted the landlord including in February 2020 and on 6 March 2020. On one occasion, the landlord informed her that there was no scaffolding. There had been unresolved correspondence regarding replacement front and back doors. They received some assurances the matter would be chased but she had not received a response. On 15 November 2020, the resident had written again as she was also concerned about the structural integrity of the property. She attached photographic evidence. No-one had replied.
3. The landlord had stated on 7 January 2021 that there could be issues about claiming any damage on buildings insurance due to a 90-day time limit to report incidents. Given she had not had any contact from the landlord to explain what the actual issue was, she would not have been able to make a claim.
4. She had written again on 18 January 2021 and received no reply.
5. She requested the following:
  1. Information as to the original issue.
  2. A survey to be undertaken in her property to ascertain whether her property had been or would be affected that would impact on any potential resale or any reduction in property value.
  3. A timescale on how the matter was to be resolved.
6. She understood that the pandemic would affect timescales but works had been taking place throughout the Covid-19 restrictions and she required a timescale nevertheless.
On 3 March 2021, the resident asked that her complaint be escalated as she had not received a response to her complaint of 10 February 2021, which response had been due on 26 February 2021.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord provided a Stage two response as follows, headed “Independent Review” as follows:
1. The instructions for scaffolding and the appointment of a contractor to carry out the works should have been managed by the surveying team, however due to poor communication within the service the works were never passed onto a contractor. The landlord was carrying out their own internal investigation in order to ensure there would be no reoccurrence of the same situation.
2. The ALMO had not “elaborated” on the nature of the work which needed to be carried out to the roof but it had identified a number of issues with the roof which needed to be addressed. It would instruct a surveyor to attend a property where a fault occurred but was “unable to” inspect a property for potential problems. If any problems were suspected to be attributed to the works, the landlord would carry out an inspection and consider any remedial works at that point. It would be communicating their remedial works plan to the resident after a site visit. It did not know when the ALMO would carry out repairs to the roof or the estimated time of the works completion. The work was being treated as urgent.
There was a gap in the evidence but later information from the landlord stated that roof repairs were carried out in August 2021 whereas the resident later stated otherwise.
On 9 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of her complaint which had gone before a “Complaints Appeal Panel” which had met on 2 February 2022 as stage 3 of its complaints procedure.
1. The panel was “disappointed” with the ALMO’s lack of communication. The resident requested that the landlord send a detailed schedule of outstanding works, repair the roof as a matter of urgency and complete the pointing to both properties, and remove the scaffolding once completed. She also wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding works to her property (replacement of back door, repair the front wall and front step).
2. The complaint was upheld and made a number of recommendations.
  1. The ALMO to organise an urgent site visit to her and the neighbouring flats by a senior member(s) of the team dealing with major works who have the necessary skills to carry out the required assessment.
  2. The relevant team was to:

(1) Itemise the works required to be carried out by 9 March 2022.

(2) Produce a defined schedule of works that the ALMO was responsible for and when the works would be completed.

(3) The ALMO was to ensure that the scaffolding was removed immediately the work was completed.

The team should clarify which were the works paid for by the previous leaseholder (i.e. the back door, the roof, and the external decoration).
The landlord or ALMO should consider awarding compensation in accordance with its policy for the failure to communicate or respond to the resident and the inconvenience their action has caused.
The landlord or ALMO should consider the following:

(1) Ensure that any recommendation made at the Stage 2 independent review should be adhered to and followed through.

(2) Action the works as communicated to the resident.

(3) Provide an update of any subsequent delay in carrying out repairs.

(4) Ensure that any member of staff leaving the company or going on an extended leave, to produce a detailed handover notes in order to ensure continuity and smooth running of the service and to avoid any outstanding jobs being overlooked or missed.

An internal email of 9 March 2022 chased a date for the site visit and for the steps set out in the Stage 3 response to be carried out, including the repair to the leaking roof, brick repairs (repointing), replacing the back door, and repairs to the front wall and front step.
An internal email of 10 March 2022 noted that there was a “minor” roof repair, and a leak needed to be resolved. It stated that changing the rear door and other external aspects should have been completed in 2019.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2022 requesting an update. She had not heard from the project manager since 26 May 2022. No alternative contact details had been provided at any stage. A sub-contractor measured the door on 16 June 2022 but she had not heard anything since. The landlord had informed her on 9 May (the year is not specified) that a repair to a broken step and the wall at the front of the property would be marked as urgent. Again, nothing had happened since and there had been no communication.
The project manager wrote to the resident on 1 July 2022 stating she was no longer the project manager and had forwarded the email to a head of the major works team.
On 4 July 2022, the resident chased the head of team who replied on the same day stating it had forwarded the email to the repairs service. The resident responded that the resident had been referred from department to department, and person to person, with no “real action” happening. As the assigned project manager, he should be in charge of all aspects of proceedings, keeping the resident informed and providing details when they were requested. Stating the project manager had forwarded on her email was not good enough.
On 6 July 2022, the head of team replied wrote stating that the major works that included the roofing were completed in 2016 and the defects period has expired in 2017, making it out of contract. Some works had been carried out to the roof which had made the guarantee void. Once a project was out of contract all ongoing maintenance was managed by the landlord’s repairs service, so it had asked that team to update the resident. It invited the resident to contact him if the resident had not heard by 15 July 2022.
On 18 July 2022, the resident wrote that she had not receive a response. She had been promised a full schedule of works by the previous project manager on 27 May 2022. The project manager said it would chase this and “someone” would call them.
A screenshot showed a text of 19 July 2022, stating that a bricklayer was on their way to the resident’s property.
The complaints team wrote on 20 July 2022. It apologised for the lack of communication. It would liaise with the repairs service to ensure the work related to the scaffolding had been completed/planned in before pursuing the removal of the scaffolding. If no works remained outstanding, it would ask that the scaffolding be removed as a matter of urgency. The back door renewal had been appointed to a contractor and as at 13 July 2021, it had identified additional works. The works to the damaged step and wall had not been raised and he would raise these. It would update the resident.
The resident replied on 21 July 2022, asking whether the writer was the new project manager. The original project manager had “at least” maintained some level of communication. There were still works to be completed on the roof. The resident asked what were the “additional works” required. In relation to the step, an operative had attended on 19 July 2022. As it was deemed to be “too hot to work”, it had rebooked the work for 2 September 2022 and 25 October 2022. This seemed far into the future to address dangerous hazards which were to have been marked as urgent. She referred to the Stage 3 complaints response.
On 21 July 2022, the complaints team replied and said it would “do its best” to respond. The works had been appointed to contractors that were no-longer working for the landlord/ALMO. The roofing team had chased the scaffolding contractor to get the scaffolding dismantled.
On 27 July 2022, the resident wrote as follows:
1. The scaffolding was removed on 25 July 2022, without notice. The resident expressed that having workers on their property without their knowledge was unacceptable.
2. He had understood from his neighbour that there was still an issue with the roof and a further scaffolding would need to be erected to complete the work.
3. He was not clear who was the project manager and he still did not have a schedule of works.
4. He asked about a schedule of works, the nature of the works to the back door, and the reason for the delays.
5. The property needed repointing urgently.
6. Since the scaffolding had been removed, the issues were much clearer and worrying.
The landlord replied on the same day that it would discuss a plan to resolve the outstanding repairs and improve communication. It would write again in the following 10 working days. It apologised for the lack of notice for the removal of the scaffolding. It would update the resident the following day. There had been a duplicate booking regarding a repair to the back door. It would further investigate the compensation and update him in the next 10 working days.
On 15 August 2022 the landlord updated the Service as follows:
1. All external works identified during the survey inspection “appear” to have been completed in August 2021, including the repointing and damp proofing.
2. The last job raised to inspect the damp issue in was attended on 7 December 2021, but “carded” due to not getting access.
3. A further leak was reported and a plumbing job was raised on 24 May 2022 but was not attended to. It did not get a reply from a resident’s phone but did not specify who.
4. The scaffolding was to be erected again to check work previously done and whether there were any visible defects in the roof/brickwork.
5. The outstanding jobs were for a damaged front wall and step, to be completed 2 September 2022 and wall render was to be plastered 25 October 2022. The landlord attended to the back door on 26 August 2021 but it was not assigned to its contractor till 29 April 2022.
6. It accepted there has been poor management of the repair.
7. The scaffolding had remained in situ due to poor management.
8. Leasehold Services did not “have any correspondence with regards to costs for day-to-day repairs”. It did not issue any invoice for major works or ‘Decent Homes’ works to its previous leaseholder. There was “no information” on its finance system to confirm payments made by the previous leaseholder regarding either.
The landlord’s repair records showed there were two follow-on appointments scheduled for the works on 2 September 2022 and 25 October 2022.
This Service requested an update from the landlord on 26 April 2023. The landlord did not provide one.
The resident informed this service on 1 May 2023 as follows:
1. She was allocated a “Project Manager” on 15 March 2022, who carried out a visit on 9 May 2022. She was informed the project manager was no longer allocated to the resident’s case. She was not replaced. There was a further site visit on 5 August 2022. It was not clear who carried out the visit and whether it was by an appropriate member of the Major Works Team.
2. The resident never received a written itemised list of works due on 9 March 2022 or a defined schedule of works, despite chasing. Instead, it arranged “random visits” for individual issues, often without notice. This included workmen attending to measure the door approximately six times. No-one had checked whether they were entitled to a UPVC door.
3. She reported that any progress made with the works was a result of the resident chasing. There was work to the roof and the “first part” of the front wall, as well as an unhelpful replacement of the back door. A visit had been scheduled by a bricklayer to complete the front wall and pointing at the back of the house for 18 May 2023.
4. A second set of scaffolding was erected on 16 November 2022. Despite an estimate of a one-week turnaround for the work to be completed, and further chasing, the work was not completed until 31 January 2023. After further chasing and no notice, the scaffolding was removed on 27 March 2023.
5. The original project manager had informed the resident that they were entitled to a new UPVC front and back door that had been paid for by the previous leaseholder. However, the resident was provided with a new wooden back door. She had been chasing an explanation/outcome. The works to the front and back door were still outstanding.
6. She had not received an offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs at her property and her concerns regarding related service charges and the length of time scaffolding was in place.

The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and therefore it remains for the Ombudsman to consider whether the outcome of the complaint constituted reasonable redress. The Ombudsman had considered the events occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, given that they are closely linked to the complaint itself.
There was no evidence that the landlord had updated the resident in relation to any of the works being carried out. Even if the works, for which the scaffolding was intended were carried out in August 2021, (which was in itself disputed) this was a significant period after it was erected in 2019 and a further significant period before it was removed in July 2022. The landlord’s account of 15 August 2022 lacked clarity, for example it did not specify what properties it referred to. While there was a dispute about the exact facts, it is clear that the scaffolding had remained in situ since 2019 and, this was not disputed, due to the landlord’s mismanagement.
The scaffolding remained in place from September 2019 to 27 March 2023, with a short gap of six months between July and November 2022. This caused the resident frustration and it impacted on her use and enjoyment of her garden, as well as caused her concerns about the integrity of the building.
There was no evidence of the landlord updating the resident as to the roof works. There was also a discrepancy between accounts as the landlord referred to the scaffolding being re-erected after 24 May 2022, implying it had been removed before May 2022. This did not accord with the parties’ correspondence and resident’s report that it was not removed until July 2022 but was re-erected on 16 November 2022. This also evidenced the poor standard of the landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping.
The resident reported that her property suffered water damage. As well as the distress this caused and impact on her enjoyment of the property, it delayed her renovating the property. While it would have been reasonable not to inspect a property for “potential” issues, the resident had reported there was damage in her bathroom and sent photographs as evidence. While the landlord accepted it should investigate the matter, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response dismissive. It did not demonstrate any recognition of its obligations. The resident had reported that the damage had been caused due to the landlord’s failure to repair the roof in a timely manner. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ascertain the position at the earliest opportunity, whether it was with a view to protecting its own position or putting the matter right. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the damage at that stage.
Given there is no evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the water damage to the bathroom was due to delays to the repairs of the leaks in the roof and building and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
It was inappropriate to inform the resident that she was too late to make a claim under the insurance where it had not given her the necessary information to make a claim. Moreover, if that were the case that it was too late, this would not absolve the landlord’s responsibility for any damage for which it was liable. Insurance was in place to underwrite the landlord’s liability.
The Ombudsman has noted the delays to the works to the doors and damaged step and the issue of the UPVC door which appeared to have been ongoing since before February 2021 and will make orders in that regard.
The initial explanation by the landlord for the delays was the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. This was inappropriate. The issue pre-dated the lockdown in March 2020. Moreover, the works were external. While the pandemic impacted on supplies and the workforce, it did not explain the delays. By the landlord’s own admission, the delays were principally due to poor communication between the landlord and its contractors which in itself demonstrated a lack of monitoring. The evidence also showed a lack of communication between the ALMO and the landlord. It is of concern that the landlord was unable to give an account of the ALMO’s actions and even more of a concern the landlord appeared to accept this position. However, while the landlord has taken its services in-house since this complaint, communication between teams, monitoring, reporting and record-keeping will remain relevant. While it is hoped there has been improvements, these aspects remain problematic, as is evidenced by the lack of progress highlighted in this report. The Ombudsman will make an order and recommendations in that regard.
The evidence showed that the landlord failed to respond to the resident on a number of occasions, adding to her frustration and increasing the time and trouble expended on chasing the matter. It is concerning that the landlord did not appear to have access to information about repairs or works being carried out, and there was no evidence of monitoring of repairs and major works.
While this was unsubstantiated by the landlord’s own evidence, the Ombudsman will give the resident the benefit of the doubt as regards the update and has no reason to doubt her account. Apart from some repointing, there was an inappropriate lack of progress, lack of updates, assurances not being followed through and a repetition of works not being raised. The removal of the project manager was particularly disappointing. The reply of 6 July 2022 referring to new build warranties, appeared to be irrelevant and demonstrated that there has been no handover. This added to the resident’s frustration. It also indicated there was no-one in the landlord taking ownership of the matter to monitor that the assurances of the Stage 3 outcome were adhered to. The response did not address the current issues for which works were required. In addition, the landlord did not appear to have considered whether there were any major works warranties regarding the roof in order to ensure the issues were progressed under the appropriate procedure.
The scaffolding was not removed until July 2022 and apart from some repointing, works including to the step and doors were delayed and remain, as at the date of this Report, outstanding. The landlord did not comply with its repairing obligations under the lease, it failed to inspect the damage to the bathroom and respond appropriately to the resident’s reports. It left scaffolding in place for a number of years, for most part unnecessarily and it failed to keep the resident properly informed, all of which had an impact on the resident, depriving her of proper enjoyment of her home and caused her considerable frustration. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration and will make orders to address the outstanding issues.
It was reasonable and appropriate that the landlord assured the resident that she would not have to pay for the scaffolding. It was also right that, at the third stage of the complaint, it stated that it would clarify which works had been paid for by the previous owner. There is no evidence that it provided any clarity to the resident. Moreover, there was a discrepancy between the resident’s and landlord’s understanding. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has investigated the payments made by the previous leaseholder but was not provided with evidence. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding on the basis of the parties’ accounts and will make an order they consider to be appropriate to resolve the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It was reasonable that the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s councillor openly acknowledged the delays and poor communication. It was also reasonable of the landlord to offer to remove the scaffolding and reassure the resident that she would not be charged for the scaffolding. While there is no evidence the two events were linked, it was also reasonable that, if the landlord had arranged to remove the scaffolding in July 2022, that it did so. The response did not, however, offer more than a vague resolution and it did not monitor the case. The landlord failed to reply to the resident’s formal complaint at Stage 1 but reasonably escalated it to the second stage response. However, this still did not produce a resolution.
The Ombudsman has commented in recent investigations and made relevant directions about the misleading application of the term “independent review” to the second stage of the landlord’s complaint process.
While the complaints process did not progress the matter, the third stage of the complaints process produced an initially positive and robust result and would have met the resident’s requirements. While the matter should not have had to wait for a third stage of a complaints process to reach that conclusion, the panel produced a clear road map for resolution of the resident’s complaints.
The Ombudsman has considered the events following the conclusion of landlord’s complaints procedure, as they are sufficiently connected to the complaint and because the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have ensured that it carried out its promised actions. One of the recommendations made by the panel is that the landlord should do what it said it would do “Action the works as communicated to the resident”. It was inappropriate that very few of the actions were followed through or they were followed through late. This included the late removal of the scaffolding, further lack of communication, offering and then removing the project manager contact, delays to the works, continuing confusion about the doors and the costs, and no offer of compensation. As a result, the complaint process failed to demonstrate the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and, in the circumstances, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs at her property and her concerns regarding related service charges and the length of time scaffolding was in place.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Scaffolding was up for an unreasonable and significant length of time. There were significant delays in works and a lack of clarity. The landlord’s management and communication was poor which caused the resident considerable time, frustration, distress and trouble. More importantly, it impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of their home.
The landlord was open about its failings. However, it did not provide a resolution until a third and additional stage of its complaints procedure. It then did not abide by its recommendations, so the remedies were either delayed or not implemented at all.

Orders

The Ombudsman’s makes the following orders:
1. Within three weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the failings highlighted in this report together with assurances in relation to next steps and the future handling of repairs and works.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £3,000 as follows:
  1. £2,500 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs at her property and her concerns about service charges and scaffolding.
  2. £500 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Within three weeks of this report, the landlord should:
  1. Confirm to the resident whether the previous leaseholder had funded the back door, including UPVC doors, the roof, and the external decoration, supported by evidence and
  2. Investigate with its staff in light of paragraph 26 of this report and consider any evidence the resident provides to the landlord of any assurances the landlord had provided to the resident that the previous leaseholder had paid for UPVC doors.
  3. If the evidence shows that that the UPVC doors were paid for, then the landlord should confirm within six weeks of this report that it will replace the wooden doors with UPVC doors.
4. The landlord should complete the works to the doors within four weeks of this report, such timescale to be extended to six weeks if the doors are to be replaced.
5. Within four weeks, the landlord should repair the step, if it has not already done so.
6. Within four weeks, an appropriately qualified contractor or member of staff of the landlord should inspect the water damage to the bathroom. It should write to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman, enclosing a report of that inspection within a further week and setting out an offer to carry out remedial works to a reasonable standard no later than within six weeks of this report, or, if the resident prefers, a payment to be assessed as follows:
  1. An estimate from an independent contractor to carry out the works.
  2. Or, if renovation works have been carried out, £500.
7. Within eight weeks, the landlord should undertake a review of this case, in the light of the findings of this report, taking into account the Ombudsman’s concerns and failings the report has highlighted and those that the landlord has acknowledged, as well as taking into account the recommendations below, set out its plan for improvement and provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman Service with the orders under paragraphs 52 a and 52 b within four weeks, under paragraphs 52 c, e and f within six weeks, and under paragraph 52 g within eight weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. It should ensure, as suggested by the panel in February 2022, that any member of staff leaving the company or going on an extended leave, to produce detailed handover notes. This is in order to ensure continuity and smooth running of the service and to avoid any outstanding jobs being overlooked.
2. It should ensure that records and correspondence of members of staff who have left the company can be accessible.
3. It should ensure that the erection and removal of scaffolding is monitored so that it is not left for unreasonable periods of time.
4. It should ensure that there is proper communication between and within teams, proper monitoring of repairs and works and reporting.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.