The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Haringey London Borough Council (202229540)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229540

Haringey London Borough Council

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for window repairs.
    2. Request for ceiling repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, and her property is a 2 bed, top floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 18 May 2021 the resident reported that 1 of the wooden bedroom windows would not open and that her ceiling needed to be repaired following a leak in the roof. An appointment was booked for 20 May 2021, and during the appointment she was told that the window was beyond repair. The resident had to chase the landlord to find out what was happening and raised a complaint on 22 July 2021. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2021 and upheld the complaint, apologised, and organised an appointment for the ceiling repairs in November 2021. The landlord explained that once it had a contractor for windows it would contact the resident to book in the work as a priority.
  3. The resident had to contact the landlord several times between October 2021 and June 2022 to try and find out what was happening with the window repairs / renewal and the ceiling repair. On 14 August 2022, after no progress on either matter, the resident requested her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord’s customer feedback policy states that escalations must be made within 6 months of the stage 1 response, so the landlord treated it as a new complaint and issued a stage 1 response. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1 and booked a new inspection for the windows to be assessed on 15 September 2022. The landlord changed from its decision in its previous stage 1 response to carry out the ceiling repairs and advised the resident that she was responsible for the repair. It gave her the details of its insurance department to make a claim.
  4. After an inspection on 15 September 2022 the resident did not hear from the landlord, and she escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 10 October 2022. The resident was unhappy with how long she had been waiting for the window and ceiling repairs and the adverse impact it was having on the household’s medical conditions. She made the additional point that the landlord had now asked her to repair the ceiling which she felt was unfair. The ceiling was large, and she could not afford it. She also stated that the landlord took 2 years to fix the leaking roof, which caused the damage to the ceiling the first place.
  5. The stage 2 response upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised and offered compensation of £497 in total, for the delays to the repairs. The response advised the landlord would be in touch once it had sourced a contractor for the windows. The response was silent on the ceiling repairs. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 March 2023, almost 2 years after she reported the window and ceiling repairs. She explained that she had been complaining about rotten windows in the bedroom and bathroom for over two years. She also said that the ceiling damage was caused by the landlord’s delays in fixing the leaking roof.
  6. The landlord has acknowledged, in its communication with the Ombudsman, that there were failings in its repair responsibilities for the windows. The resident and the landlord have informed the Ombudsman that the 2 windows that this complaint relates to were replaced in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Window repairs

  1. The lease for the property sets out that the landlord is responsible for the window frames and windows – to maintain, repair and renew as needed. The landlord repairs handbook sets out the timescales for repairs, classing window repairs under “agreed appointment” offering an appointment within 28 days. It is not clear in the evidence whether the landlord classed the window repair under this category or under “planned repair” – to inspect within 28 days and tell the resident at the inspection when the job will be carried out. Either way, after the first inspection of 20 May 2021, which was in time, the landlord had not kept to any of the timescales within its repair handbook.
  2. Landlords must communicate with residents to deliver a good service. The landlord did not proactively keep the resident updated and informed about the repair. The evidence shows that the resident had to chase the landlord on numerous occasions. When the resident explained why she was chasing for the work to be completed, and outlined the medical needs in the household, the landlord did not acknowledge this or empathise with the resident. This would have been an opportunity for the landlord to communicate with the resident, actively listen, set out a plan with a timeframe and discuss any alternative solutions, while it waited for a contractor.
  3. The landlord’s final response of 15 November 2022 acknowledged the landlord failings and apologised for the delay to the window repairs. It did not provide a specific date or timeframe for the repair to be carried out but advised that the housing service would be in contact once a contractor had been found. It offered compensation of £497, which was made up of:
    1. £10 one off payment.
    2. £42 for £2 per day between 17 May 2021 and 7 June 2021.
    3. £395 for £5 per week between 8 June 2021 and 13 December 2022.
    4. £50 for time and trouble.
  4. In the Ombudsman assessment, the landlord’s total offer of compensation was not fair. The amount offered for the delay is in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy of the “suggested levels of award’. There is scope within the policy to award higher amounts and the compensation offered was not a fair remedy.
  5. The landlord offered £50 for time and trouble. In the Ombudsman’s view this is not enough. The failings were:
    1. The landlord did not repair the windows within the timescales given in its repairs handbook.
    2. The landlord did not clearly explain why it could not keep to the timescales, did not provide updates or set out an agreed plan of action with timescales to the customer.
    3. The resident had to continually chase the landlord for any updates from 22 July 2021 to 10 October 2022. This would have taken considerable time and effort.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to deal with the window repairs in timescales set out in its repairs handbook. It is reasonable at times for landlords to experience delays with contractors and works, but residents must be updated in a proactive and timely manner. Landlords must also listen to resident’s situations and adapt its actions and resolutions with the resident in mind. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the window repairs. The Ombudsman orders compensation of £600 for the delays to the repairs and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Ceiling repairs

  1. The lease for the property sets out that the resident is responsible for keeping the property in good repair and decorated – this includes plaster and plasterwork of ceilings. On the 18 May 2021 the resident reported the ceiling repairs to the landlord, and it accepted the repair as its responsibility. The landlord repair logs show that in 2018 and 2019 leaks into the bedroom were reported and that work on the roof was completed in May 2020. The evidence provided points to the roof being the cause of the leak and subsequently the cause of the ceiling damage.
  2. In the landlord’s first stage 1 response of 2 August 2021 it upheld the complaint and arranged a ceiling repair appointment for 29 November 2021. It explained why plastering jobs had been on hold and apologised for not explaining it to the resident. The resident had to contact the landlord on 2 December 2021 as it had attended the ceiling appointment with the wrong job number and no works had been completed. The landlord apologised and advised it would escalate to the repairs team for action and that someone would contact the resident. This is evidence that the landlord continued to accept the ceiling repairs as its responsibility.
  3. In the subsequent stage 1 response of 7 September 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it was not responsible for the ceiling repairs and that she was. It did not offer an apology or explanation for the mistake. It did provide contact details for its insurance team and some advice on home contents insurance. It was not clear on which insurance the resident could or should claim on. The Ombudsman does not find this response fair or reasonable in all the circumstances. Over a year had passed until it realised its error and informed the resident. An apology and explanation would be appropriate and expected.
  4. The Ombudsman guidance on complaints involving insurance is clear that landlords should consider whether it is responsible for any damage and if so, either put right the damage caused and / or facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy. The Ombudsman section 49 special investigation into Haringey, published July 2023, found evidence that the landlord was often unclear on its repair responsibilities in leasehold properties.
  5. In her escalation to stage 2 the resident explained that the landlord’s delays in fixing the roof were the reason the ceiling damage was so extensive. The repair logs provided by the landlord showed a delay, over its published timescales, in the roof being fixed. The resident did not agree she should be responsible for the repairs.
  6. In summary, the landlord did not act reasonably. For over a year it accepted responsibility and did no works. It raised the resident’s expectations that it would do the work. Its error in taking responsibility for the repairs was not realised for 15 months. The landlord did not offer an apology, explanation, or compensation for its mistake. It did not share with the resident any learning it would take from this service failure. The delay in realising its mistake meant the resident was denied an opportunity to make arrangements to fix the ceiling. To date the resident has had no definitive answer on the landlord’s position on the ceiling repair as its final complaint response was silent on the matter. It is unclear as to whether too much time has passed since the leak was fixed for the resident to make a claim.
  7. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must carry out the ceiling repairs, to put the resident back in the position she would have been if the leaks had not occurred. Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide a clear timeframe of when it expects to complete the ceiling repairs. The landlord’s suggested level of award for delays for repairs ranges from £5-£15 per week. The Ombudsman has not awarded in line with this policy as the ceiling repairs are not normally the landlord’s responsibility. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £300 for the delays and misinformation, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint did not consider all of the complaint and did not take measurable steps to effectively resolve the issues. The landlord also did not communicate well with the resident about the complaint and missed an opportunity to escalate the initial complaint to stage 2. This prevented the resident in approaching the Ombudsman with her complaint sooner.
  2. The first landlord stage 1 response was received on 2 August 2021 – 8 days after the complaint was made. This was within the 10 working days timescale in the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  3. On 2 December 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update on her complaint and when works would be done. The landlord did not treat this as an escalation to stage 2. From the evidence provided the resident did not feel that the complaint was resolved to her satisfaction and made clear indications that she wished to escalate the matter. She stated that she wanted a response in 14 days or was going to escalate to the Ombudsman and seek legal redress. The landlord should have explored this further, communicated with the resident, and escalated to stage 2.
  4. When the resident did request an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 14 August 2022, the landlord did not accept this, as it was more than 6 months since the stage 1 response. The landlord stage 1 response is clear on this timeframe for escalation, which is in its policy. The landlord treated the escalation request as a new stage 1 complaint. The Ombudsman’s view is that the resident had escalated her complaint, and the issues remained the same. The landlord should have exercised discretion and allowed the escalation to stage 2 of its complaint process.
  5. By not escalating the complaint on the 2 December 2021 nor on 14 August 2022, the landlord considerably delayed the resident’s option to access the Ombudsman’s service to investigate her complaint.
  6. The second landlord stage 1 response was received on 7 September 2022, 17 working days after the complaint. The landlord should have replied in 10 working days as per its complaint policy.
  7. The landlord stage 2 response was received 27 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord did state 15 November 2022 as the date it would respond by, and it did keep to this timescale. It was however out of time in respect of its policy and the Code. Point 5.13 of the Code explains that landlords exceptionally, can provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received but this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. In this case the extension was less than an extra 10 days, but no explanation was provided to the resident. This was not a customer focused approach or in line with the Code.
  8. The landlord’s final response grouped together the window and ceiling repairs. It was not clear whether the resolutions and compensation were for the windows or ceiling repairs or both. The resident had clearly stated in her escalation that she was unhappy with the stage 1 response about the ceiling repairs and that she disagreed with the landlord’s decision that she was responsible for them. The stage 2 response was silent on this issue. Point 5.10 of the Code details that the landlord must set out its understanding of the issues outstanding. Point 5.16 states that the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, and the reasons for any decisions made, must be clear. The landlord’s response failed to do this, and the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  9. The Ombudsman finds maladministration because of the multiple failings of the landlord in the complaint handling of this case. In recognition of the inconvenience to the resident because of the landlord’s complaint handling, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation and apologise to her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for window repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for ceiling repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team.
  2. The landlord must complete the ceiling repairs. Within 7 days of the date of this report the landlord must contact the resident and agree a date for the ceiling repairs to be completed, within 28 days of the date of this report. If this is not possible due to the complex nature of the works or supply of the materials, the landlord should explain this to the resident and work to get it done at the earliest opportunity, which should be no later than 3 months after the date of this report. The arranged date must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. If the work has already been completed the landlord must provide evidence of this within 28 days.
  3. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1350 (which replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £497) broken down as follows:
    1. £800 for service failures in its handling of the window repairs (£600 for the delays in completing the works and £200 for distress/inconvenience).
    2. £300 for service failures in its handling of the ceiling repairs, causing distress/inconvenience.
    3. £250 for service failures in its complaints handling.
  4. This amount (less any previous amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  5. The landlord must show it has compiled with these orders within 4 weeks of this report.