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

Haringey London Borough Council (202225807)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225807

Haringey London Borough Council

14 March 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:
    1. Repairs to the boiler.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the property since 24 February 1997. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord’s records show that the resident has no known vulnerabilities. This Service has been unable to verify this with the resident.
  2. The resident told the landlord that his heating was not working on Saturday 10 December 2022 at 9:30pm.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord at 4:38pm on 14 December 2022. He explained that he had called the landlord again on 12 December 2022 and been told that an engineer would attend the property on the afternoon of 14 December 2022, but they still had not arrived. He said he wanted to complain because he had been without heating for the 4 coldest nights of the year.
  4. The landlord answered the email on the same day. It said that it had emailed the contractor that was due to attend the property but also asked the resident to try to contact the contractor himself.
  5. The contractor attended the property on 16 December 2022 at 6pm. The resident emailed the landlord to tell it that a part was needed but the contractor had not given him a time for fitting it. The contractor had left 1 electric heater for the resident to use and he was concerned about how much this would cost to run. The resident asked for an update on how long it would take to source and fit the part.
  6. On 30 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again. He asked for an update and said that he had not had a response to his last email.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 January 2023.
  8. On the 16 January 2023 a contractor attended the property and fitted a control valve. It said that the heating and hot water was left in working order. An order was placed for an electrician to check some connections in the boiler following the visit.
  9. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 17 January 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the amount of time taken to repair the boiler. The landlord confirmed that the repair should have been treated as an emergency on 10 December 2022. It offered £150 compensation, comprising of £20 per week for 5 weeks with no heating or hot water and £2 per day for extra electricity usage.
  10. On 20 January 2023 at 4:52pm, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he was unhappy with the compensation offer. He said that the “service was still not restored or resolved”. On the same day an engineer attended the property to check the wiring, found a fault with the pump, and replaced it. It is unclear if this happened before or after the resident sent the email.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord again on 24 January 2023. He said that he had no confidence in the safety of the boiler and asked for a new boiler to be fitted. He said that he had spent £94 extra in electricity due to using the electric heater provided and that he could show the landlord photographic images of his credit meter to prove this. He emailed the landlord again on 26 January 2023 to ask when the boiler would be replaced.
  12. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 3 February 2023. He said that the landlord had had enough time to instruct a new boiler installation and that now the extra electricity used was £173 because the issue was still not resolved.
  13. An internal landlord email dated 20 February 2023 said that the best way to resolve the complaint was to inspect the boiler and discuss the residents needs because it was confused by the stage 2 escalation request. The contractor had told the landlord that the boiler had been fixed on 13 January 2023. It said that sending an engineer back “without an inspectors visit would be counterproductive as there seems to be heating and hot water at the property”.
  14. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 10 March 2023. It said that although the boiler was repaired in January 2023 it understood that the resident had concerns about its safety and was requesting a new one. The landlord explained that it had no obligation to replace the boiler unless it was beyond economic repair. It said that it appreciated the residents concerns about the safety of the boiler and a further inspection would be arranged. It said that its contractor had advised that the boiler was not working for 33 days. It said that it had made an error when calculating the electricity because weekends had not been considered. It acknowledged that it was likely to cost more than £2 a day to run an electric heater however it could only pay based on its compensation policy. A further £20 compensation was offered, total £170.
  15. When the boiler inspection was carried out on 20 March 2023 it was found that the hot water was working but the heating had not been working since December 2022. There was an internal fault on the heating controls. A warranty call was arranged with the manufacturer because the boiler was still under warranty.
  16. The resident advised this Service that heating was restored to the property on 23 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook says that an emergency repair will be attended within 24 hours of a resident reporting it and that it will attempt to complete the repair on its first visit. One of the examples given of an emergency repair is a “total loss of heating or hot water”.
  2. The resident reported that his heating was not working on 10 December 2022. The landlord did not attend the property until 6 days later, on 16 December 2022. This was a failure by the landlord to adhere to its own policy which caused the resident detriment, particularly bearing in mind that it was the coldest time of the year.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times before the contractor attended the property the first time. When the contractor said that a part was required the resident emailed the landlord twice more to ask for an update on when the part would be fitted. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to these emails. The resident had no heating over the Christmas period and there is no evidence that the landlord contacted him between 16 December 2022, when the contractor attended and 13 January 2022, when a part was fitted. This was a communications failure by the landlord. It would have led to distress for the resident as he wanted to know when his heating would be repaired and was concerned about the cost of the electric heater that he had been provided. It also cost him time and trouble chasing the repair.
  4. There is evidence that the resident told the landlord on 20 January 2023 that his heating was still not working. This Service has seen no evidence that this email was answered. This was a missed opportunity to notice the fact that the landlord’s contractor had not repaired the fault. This caused a further delay and extra distress and inconvenience to the resident who was still concerned about the cost of the electric heater.
  5. The resident had no heating from 10 December 2022 to 23 March 2023. This was a total of 104 days and it occurred over the coldest part of the year. The boiler was still under warranty with a major manufacturer and therefore there should have been no issue with sourcing any necessary parts. The situation should have been resolved sooner. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident severe detriment as he lost faith in the safety of the boiler and was also extremely concerned about the cost of the electricity used by the temporary heater.
  6. Considering the above evidence there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the boiler.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it would:
    1. acknowledge receipt of a formal complaint within 2 working days,
    2. contact residents prior to sending its final decision,
    3. deal with stage 1 complaints within 10 working days unless it needed to speak to the parties involved, and
    4. deal with stage 2 complaints within 25 days unless it needed to speak to the parties involved.
  2. The landlord took 14 days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 22 working days to answer it. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time said, “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required”. The landlord’s failure to do this and to respond to the complaint within the timeframe set out in its policy meant that the resident was uninformed about the status of the repair to the boiler for longer, causing him further distress.
  3. There is evidence that the resident told the landlord that he was not happy with the stage 1 response on 20 January 2023. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process until 3 February 2023 when the resident explicitly told it that this was what he wanted. The landlord should have responded to the email the resident sent on 20 January 2023 and escalated the complaint.  Its failure to do so led to a further delay which cost the resident further time and trouble as he had to contact the landlord again.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy was not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time which said that stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days rather than 25. The landlord’s response to the stage 2 complaint was sent in 26 working days and the landlord did not contact the resident prior to sending it. If it had contacted the resident as its policy says it would, it would have known that the heating was still not working and could have taken appropriate action to remedy the situation and offered the relevant updated level of compensation. The landlord’s failure to do this led to the resident becoming more frustrated and distressed and it cost him further time and trouble because he then escalated the complaint to this Service.
  5. As part of the complaints process the landlord should have considered if it could restore the resident to the position he would have been in but for the landlord’s failure. If it could not do this it should have considered what remedies were needed to put matters right for him. The resident told the landlord that the electric heater provided was more expensive to run than his usual heating and provided proof of this. The landlord admitted in its stage 2 complaints response that the cost of the electricity used by the temporary heater was likely to be higher than the compensation that its policy allowed it to give. The landlord should have considered the actual cost to the resident and reflected this in its compensation offer. Failure to do so left the resident out of pocket and this led to a further deterioration in his relationship with the landlord.
  6. Considering the landlords failure to follow its policy, the delays in answering the complaint and its failure to put matters right, there has been maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders.
  2. To pay the resident directly a total of £700.00 compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £300.00 for time and trouble caused to the resident.
    2. £200.00 for inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. £200.00 for distress caused to the resident.
  3. A senior manager must apologise in writing to the resident for the poor service he experienced regarding the length of time it took to complete the repair, the emails that were not responded to, and its complaint handling.
  4. The Ombudsman has recently made orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach, repairs service and compensation policy. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaints handling and its repairs service.