Haringey London Borough Council (202222160)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222160

Haringey London Borough Council

13 February 2024

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 a leak in the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2016. The property is a 3 bedroom, ground floor maisonette in a block.
Due to a language barrier, the resident’s daughter acts as her representative. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs handbook for residents says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and outside parts of the property including the roof, water pipes and light fittings. The landlord is also responsible for repairs to shared communal areas in blocks of flats. It will deal with urgent out of hours jobs that cannot wait until the next working day, including major water leaks. It will attend emergency repairs, which are repairs that put a person or property at risk, within 24 hours, including major water leaks. It will complete ‘agreed appointment’ repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time set out the following 4 stage process:
1. Informal complaint, where it could resolve the issue immediately without going through a more formal process.
2. Stage 1 complaints, which it would respond to within 10 working days.
3. Stage 2 complaints, which it would respond to within 25 working days.
4. Complaints panel, which would give a final response within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 1 October 2021 the resident reported that, when it rained, water leaked into the property, affecting the bedroom, bathroom and hallway. The landlord raised an agreed appointment repair and attended 10 days later. It said that an internal repair was required and the job would need to be passed to a contractor.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 9 November 2021. She said there was a leak in the bathroom ceiling every time it rained. She needed to have buckets on the ground to catch the water, which had to be emptied regularly, and the light in the bathroom had been removed. There was a child in the property and this had not been taken into consideration. The landlord had visited the previous month and told her that contractors would need to be involved but her case had been closed without the repair being done or any further contact. She said this was the fifth time she had chased it up.
The landlord raised an agreed appointment repair to make safe the light in the bathroom on 16 November 2021. It said it attended 3 days later to complete this and recorded the repair as closed the same day.
On 23 November 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and a for a lack of communication and updates. It was in the process of changing contractors and this had caused a delay in carrying out the repair. It would update her by 26 November 2021 (which it did) and it would contact her within 2 weeks to tell her which contractor would be completing the job.
The resident asked for an update on the repair in January 2022 and chased again in March 2022, when she asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord replied that it had chased the repairs team and would update her once a response was received. It told her she needed to contact the ‘corporate feedback team’ to escalate her complaint.
The resident again asked for an update on the repair in August 2022. Two days later the landlord replied that it had passed the job to a different contractor who would make contact with her to arrange an appointment. In December 2022, the resident asked the landlord for contact details for the contractor as she had not heard anything.
On 30 January 2023 the resident reported that the leak was ongoing, and this had caused mould in the property. The landlord was scheduled to attend 5 days previously but had not arrived and the resident had received no contact from its contractor as promised. The landlord treated this as a formal complaint and provided a stage 1 response on 13 February 2023. It apologised for not responding to her in a timely manner and said it had received a high volume of emails. It would find out why the contractor had not been in contact with her and let her know when it would be and apologised for this. The same month the landlord raised an inspection for damp and mould.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 28 February 2023 and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and provide a response.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
1. It had failed to progress works as expected following the visit in October 2021. This issue first arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, which presented challenges. It should have done more to explain this and manage the resident’s expectations.
2. Its contractor had attempted to visit a neighbouring property on 2 occasions but had not gained access. It had only been made aware of this during the stage 2 investigation and had since provided the contractor with the neighbour’s contact details and it was making further attempts to contact them and had arranged a visit for 29 March 2023. If this did not go ahead it would send an appointment letter. It asked her to let the neighbour know it would be in touch and/or ask the neighbour to make contact with the landlord about this.
3. It had several jobs waiting to be actioned which were works raised during the COVID-19 lockdown. It should have done more to communicate with her and review its contractors performance.
4. It was at fault for poor communication and delays in managing the leak. It should have made more effort to engage with both her and the neighbour and been more pro-active in dealing with the leak. The delays were due to poor communication and coordination and it should have fixed the leak sooner.
5. It apologised and said it had taken learning from her complaint. The outstanding works would be completed in a “reasonable timeframe”.
The following month the resident asked for an update and for a timeframe in which the matter would be resolved. She asked to be updated weekly on progress. The landlord replied on 5 May 2023 that it had not been able to gain access to the neighbour’s property and was trying to contact them urgently. It would provide an update as soon as possible.
Eleven days later the resident asked for an update. The landlord replied that it was still chasing this internally and confirmed it would provide updates when it could, but this may not be on a weekly basis due to staff capacity and a high volume of enquiries.
In July 2023 the resident asked for an update. The landlord replied that the works were still outstanding and it had asked internally for a date when these would be completed.
On 15 August 2023 the resident asked for an update. The landlord replied that the matter had been escalated to a senior staff member for contact to be made. The same month the landlord asked its contractor for an update on the job request sent over in August 2022. The contractor replied that it had tried to visit both the resident and neighbour’s properties but had not been able to gain access. The landlord said it would send letters to both properties asking for contact.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord asked the resident to make contact to discuss the outstanding repair issues. It said its contractor had tried to contact her on several occasions and attempted to visit her without success. There had been a “significant breakdown” in communication as the contractor did not have the right contact information for her. The landlord said it had contact with the resident the same day to discuss the issues and following this it provided her contact details to its contractor to make urgent contact.
The contractor carried out a CCTV survey of the drains in the resident’s property on 4 October 2023 and noted an issue in one of the pipes that could be a possible cause of the leak. On 24 October 2023 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection and noted this was of low and medium severity throughout the property. It noted that a mould wash was required in 2 of the bedrooms (recorded as completed on 2 January 2024).
The landlord’s contractor reported that works were carried out over 3 dates in November and December 2023 to repair the pipe thought to be causing the leak. This included an asbestos survey and an inspection of the property above, where no issues were found. However, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing after these works were completed.
In January 2024 the resident said the leak was ongoing and she still had no light in the bathroom and was having to catch water in buckets. The landlord now believed it was a structural issue and was waiting on a date for a structural survey. The resident said that she had been told if it was a structural issue there was not much the landlord could do.
The landlord told this Service in February 2024 that it had not been able to reinstate the light in the bathroom as the leak was ongoing. It was exploring the possibility of having to do roofing and asphalt repairs to the external communal areas, which it was aiming to complete by the end of February 2024. It was actively engaging with its contractor and regularly communicating with the resident regarding progress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident first reported this issue in 2017 but did not raise a complaint with the landlord about this matter until November 2021. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 6 months, so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). With that in mind, this investigation is focused on events from May 2021 onwards. Anything that happened before this date is considered for context but is not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
The resident has reported that this matter has had a negative effect on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
Between January and May 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is any evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. This investigation included the landlord’s handling of repairs and complaints and it reviewed 32 cases brought to the Ombudsman between mid-2018 and April 2023. It identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in July 2023 and can be viewed here Haringey-P49-report-FINAL.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The events in this case took place before and during this period and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case and are referred to in this report. However, we have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.

Handling of a leak in the resident’s property

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following, concerns which are relevant in this case:
1. Unreasonable delays in the landlord inspecting and carrying out repairs, which was at times related to the management of its contractors.
2. Not offering compensation despite clear evidence of service failure and the associated time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
3. A lack of ownership by staff and a loss of focus on achieving the right outcome for the resident.
The cause of the leak in the property is still unknown and it is, therefore, not clear whether it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair or not. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to investigate and identify the source of the leak so it can determine whether it is responsible for any repair works required.
When the resident reported the leak in October 2021, the landlord raised an agreed appointment repair and attended within the timeframe set out in its repairs handbook, as detailed above. It was reasonable to raise the job under this category as the leak was not constant and only happened when it rained, and so understandable that it would not be classed as a “major leak”.
When the landlord attended in October 2021, it identified that further works were required. However, this was not progressed and it was only after the resident made a complaint the following month that it explained this was due to a change in contractor. While understandable that delays can occur when landlords change contractors, it should provide residents with regular updates during the period of delay, to provide reassurance and an estimated timeframe for when the repair will be carried out. The landlord did not do that in this case, which would have left the resident feeling as though it was not taking the matter seriously.
Worryingly, in its stage 2 response of March 2023 the landlord gave a different explanation for why this work was not progressed, which was the COVID-19 lockdown. COVID-19 restrictions were in place periodically from March 2020 through to July 2021, when most of the legal limits on social contact were removed in England. While it is noted that the resident raised this issue prior to October 2021, when there may have been restrictions in place, it is unclear why the landlord would have been unable to progress works identified during a visit 3 months after the lockdown restrictions ended. These differing explanations for why works were not progressed would have been confusing for the resident and left her with little faith in the landlord’s investigation or its complaint handling process.
It was appropriate for the landlord to make safe the electrics in November 2021 as the leak was coming through the light switch. However, it was inappropriate that it raised an agreed appointment repair for this and, considering the potential risk, it should have raised an emergency repair in line with its repairs handbook, as detailed above. While the landlord attended quickly to make this safe and manage any potential risk, it was not in line with the committed response time for emergency repairs set out in its repairs handbook.
It is understandable that the landlord has been unable to reinstate the light as the leak is ongoing, but it should have considered whether any temporary (possible battery powered) lighting measures could be put in place while works to address the leak were ongoing. There is no record that the landlord did this, which has left the resident and her family having to use torches when they use the bathroom for over 2 years. An order has been made below for the landlord to consider this and confirm in writing whether it can provide any temporary lighting for the bathroom, with timescales.
After the stage 1 response in November 2021 there is no record that the landlord did anything until 8 months later, when it referred the matter to a different contractor. During this period, the resident chased the landlord on at least 3 occasions with little or no response, which was very frustrating for her. The landlord told the resident it had referred the matter to a different contractor but did not explain why or provide any sort of timeframe for contact to be made, which would have been appropriate.
After the matter was referred to the new contractor, it was a further 7 months before any meaningful update was provided, which only came via the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said the contractor had attempted to visit the neighbouring property but, from the information within the complaint response, it appears that these visits were carried out unannounced, as the contractor did not have the neighbour’s contact details. It is unreasonable for landlords to expect residents to provide access with no prior warning or arrangement and concerning that the landlord had not provided its contractor with the relevant contact details in order to arrange access to the neighbouring property.
As part of the stage 2 response in March 2023 the landlord committed to carry out the repairs in a “reasonable timeframe”; however, nearly 10 months later, the leak is still ongoing. As the landlord did not know what repairs were required to resolve the leak, it was unfair to make this promise to the resident as it would have raised her expectations and then left her disappointed when the matter was not resolved.
After the stage 2 response, there is no record that the landlord took any further action, despite the resident chasing on at least 3 occasions. It was not until 5 months later that it contacted its contractor for an update, which was a year after the landlord had originally referred the matter on.
The landlord’s contractor said it had been trying to visit both properties but had not been able to gain access. Again, there is no record of these visits and, from the information provided, it would suggest the landlord had not supplied its contractor with the correct contact details for the resident or the neighbour. The resident was chasing repeatedly for progress via email and so it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide this as a method of contact to the contractor for progress to be made. It was not until 2 months later that the landlord provided the correct contact details to the contractor.
The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor. From the records provided, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 11 occasions over a 2 year period to chase progress, which included 2 formal complaints and contact via this Service. The majority of the landlord’s responses contained little or no meaningful information and only said a further update would be provided, which in most cases was not, until the resident chased this up. This placed an unfair burden on the resident to constantly chase the landlord for updates and the lack of meaningful responses would have upsetting and left her feeling as though the landlord was not committed to resolving the issue.
From at least January 2023, the resident told the landlord that the leak had caused mould in the property and, while an inspection was raised the following month, it did not attend the property until 8 months later. When it did attend, the landlord noted that a mould wash was required. As the mould in the property was noted as low and medium severity, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry this out as an agreed appointment repair. However, it did not complete this until 71 days later, which is more than double the committed timeframe set out in its repairs handbook, as detailed above.
Since October 2023, some progress had been made, but the leak remains unresolved with no clear cause identified. As this is 2 years after the resident initially reported the issue, this is a significant and unreasonable delay. From the evidence provided, there have been long periods of time with no action being taken which indicates a lack of ownership of the issue as no one was monitoring or overseeing progress, which would have been sensible.
The landlord has acknowledged failings in its handling of this matter and apologised repeatedly for this as part of the complaint handling process. However, this would have had little meaning or impact for the resident as, despite identifying its failings, the landlord did not progress the matter and continued to make the same mistakes around a lack of communication and ownership of the issue. This would have been upsetting for the resident and caused her to lose all faith in the landlord.
The landlord has provided a detailed explanation to this Service about how and why the failings occurred in this case and what it will be doing to address this, which is positive. As part of the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it had identified learning and provided some basic detail about this. However, in order to show the resident that it has taken this matter seriously, an order has been made below for the landlord to provide a detailed written update to the resident setting out its review of this matter, how and why the failings occurred and the learning it has taken from this to ensure the same issues do not happen again.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and while the landlord acknowledged its multiple failings, it did not do enough to put things right or consider redress for the resident. In consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order is made below for the landlord to pay the resident £900 compensation.
The landlord has recently told this Service that it is in regular contact with the resident to provide updates; however, recent updates to this Service from the resident and the landlord differ, which is a concern. The landlord’s action plan to identify and resolve the leak is vague, which will not give the resident confidence that it is committed to resolving the issue.
An order has therefore been made for the landlord to provide a detailed written update to the resident on its action plan to investigate and resolve the leak. This should include what roofing and asphalt repairs it is considering and any other possible causes it will investigate. It should also include other options it will consider and explore if it is unable to identify and resolve the leak within 3 months, for example, a temporary or permanent move or other rehousing options.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted a lack of active investigation to identify failures or consideration of redress as part of its complaint handling, which is relevant in this case
In November 2021 and early 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaints in 11 and 15 days, which were slightly over the committed response time set out in its complaints policy, as detailed above, and so only minor delays. The stage 2 complaint in 2023 was responded to in 21 days, which was within the committed timeframe set out in its complaints policy.
While the landlord’s responses were generally in line with its committed response times, both stage 1 responses lacked detail and all three responses failed to set out any specific actions it would take to address and resolve the leak. This amounts to maladministration and would have been disappointing for the resident and resulted in her losing faith in the complaints process or that the landlord would ultimately resolve the issue for her.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint in March 2022, she was told to contact another landlord department, which was an unreasonable response. While the landlord will understandably have different departments with different responsibilities, it is unfair to expect residents to be aware of the intricate workings of the landlord.
Where a request is made, the landlord should forward this on to the relevant department to deal with, rather than expecting the resident to do this. This amounts to maladministration and meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to escalate the complaint and put things right for the resident at an earlier opportunity. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, which is considered reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There has been a significant and unreasonable delay in the landlord’s handling of the leak and 2 years after reporting the issue, the resident is still living with the leak. There have been long periods of time where no action has been taken and despite the resident chasing the landlord on at least 11 occasions, including raising formal complaints and escalating to this Service, the landlord is no further forward in resolving the issue. The landlord has given different reasons for why there have been delays, which would have caused confusion for the resident and led to her losing faith in the landlord. When the landlord referred the matter to its contractor, it failed to provide sufficient details for the contractor to arrange access to the resident and neighbour’s properties and there is no evidence of regular follow up or monitoring of progress. The resident told the landlord she had mould in her property but it was 8 months before it carried out an inspection in relation to this and over 2 months before it carried out the work identified. The landlord identified its failings in the handling of this matter and apologised repeatedly but did not learn from its mistakes as it repeated these and failed to put things right for the resident or provide redress.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses lacked detail and all 3 responses failed to set out how it would address and resolve the issue for the resident, which would have been disappointing for her and resulted in no real action being taken. It was unfair that the landlord told the resident to contact another department in March 2022 when she asked to escalate her complaint as it should have sent this on internally to ensure her complaint was escalated. Its failure to do this mean that the landlord missed the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider whether it can provide any temporary lighting for the bathroom and provide a written update to the resident, including timescales.
2. Provide a detailed written update to the resident setting out its review of this matter, how and why the failings occurred and the learning it has taken from this to ensure the same issues do not happen again.
3. Provide a detailed written update to the resident on its action plan to investigate and resolve the leak. This should include what roofing and asphalt repairs it is considering and any other possible causes it will investigate. It should also include other options it will consider and explore if it is unable to identify and resolve the leak within 3 months, for example, a temporary or permanent move or other rehousing options.
4. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation, made up of:
  1. £900 for its handling of the leak.
  2. £300 for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.