Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Haringey Council (202100755)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100755

Haringey Council

5 October 2021


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 refers to:

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and record keeping. 

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat within a block of flats maintained by the landlord. The complaint has been raised by the resident and, at times, by her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’.

3.     In December 2018, the resident reported that there was a leak into her bedroom from the roof above. The landlord’s records show that a repair order was raised on 17 December 2018 and work to refix or renew the roof tiles was reported as completed on 22 August 2019.

4.     The landlord’s repair records show that a repair was logged on 12 October 2020 following a report of a leak from the resident’s roof into her living room. This repair was reported as completed on 21 October 2020. A further repair was raised on 27 October 2020 as the resident’s had reported that the roof was leaking again. The landlord’s records remain unclear as to what repairs were required or where the leak was reported as coming from. The landlord’s records show that a surveyor attended the property on 4 November 2020.

5.     On 4 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and explained that she had been in hospital after spending the majority of November and December 2020 in a damp flat with two leaks and mould on the walls. She confirmed that two repair jobs had been raised with the landlord, one for a leak at the front of the property and one at the back, both of which required scaffolding. She said that she had received a text message on 11 December 2020 stating that a roofer was on their way but no one turned up. She explained that if they had turned up, there was no scaffolding in place so the work would not have been completed. A roofer was due to attend on 18 December 2020 once the scaffolding was in place but again no one showed. She advised that the work to the back of the property had now been scheduled for 8-9 January 2021, but she had not heard anything about the work needed at the front. She explained that the current condition of the property was impacting her health conditions and she had been hospitalised twice. She added that the damp had spread across the whole ceiling and would be expensive to resolve. She said that she would be pursuing legal action if these issues were not resolved.

6.     The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on 6 January 2021 and raised a stage one complaint on her behalf. It confirmed that it would respond by 19 January 2021.

7.     Following this, the resident emailed the landlord and provided photos of the damp and said that she felt the flat was becoming uninhabitable. She explained that she was particularly vulnerable due to her medical conditions and currently needed to stay at home due to the Covid-19 pandemic. She sent a further email on 12 January 2021 as she had not received an update on the progress of the repairs. The landlord responded the following day and apologised. It said that it had asked the member of staff handling the complaint to provide an update.

8.     The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 19 January 2021 and explained the following:

  1. It confirmed that it had upheld the resident’s complaint. It had discussed the resident’s concerns with a surveyor who attended the property on 4 November 2020 who explained that the works had been referred to its contractors. Its contractors were waiting for the government guidelines to relax to be able to resume their full duties. It added that its contractors had been affected by the pandemic and there were absences from their workforce.
  2. It had asked its contractors to prioritise this work once they were able to do so safely and said that they would be contacting the resident directly to arrange an appointment. It said it would continue to communicate with its contractors to ensure that this matter was treated as urgent. It apologised that this was not the response the resident was expecting and thanked her for her patience. It confirmed that she could escalate her complaint to stage two if she remained dissatisfied.

9.     The resident responded on the same day and expressed dissatisfaction that she would need to wait until the lockdown restrictions were lifted in March 2021 for a repair to take place. She said that the issue of the leaking roof had been ongoing since 2018, a repair was carried out in 2019, after nine months of complaining but this was not successful. She said that both leaks were due to be dealt with that month (January 2021), but she had now been told that the contractors were not available until the lockdown restrictions were eased. She added that the contractors would be working outside which she believed was permitted. She reiterated the effect that this matter was having on her health and added that she had extra heating costs to keep her property warm due to the damp which she did not feel she should have to pay because of the landlord’s negligence. She also expressed concern that the cost of the repairs was getting higher.

10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on 20 January 2021 and said that it had passed her email onto a manager to respond. This was logged at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.

11. The landlord’s records show that the work to the roof raised on 27 October 2020 was completed on 22 January 2021, but it is unclear as to what this work entailed.

12. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 February 2021 and explained the following:

  1. It confirmed that the leak was reported in early October 2020 and a repair took place on 21 October 2020, a few weeks later. A further leak was reported on 27 October 2020 and a survey was carried out on 4 November 2020. The leak was finally fixed in January 2021.
  2. It apologised for the poor service it had provided regarding the repair. It noted that there had been poor communication between the roofer and the scaffolding contractor. It explained that enough time should have been allowed for the scaffolding to be erected before the roofers attending. It had been informed that some supply issues prevented the scaffolding from being erected sooner.
  3. It explained that the contractors had several workers shielding and their services had to be reduced as a result, this led to inevitable delays and cancellations. It added that the contractors had not communicated regarding these delays in advance. It explained that this would be discussed with the contractors moving forward to prevent any further communication issues. It confirmed that provided leaks were containable, they would not be considered urgent repairs.
  4. It said that because of the poor communication relating to the roof repair, it would offer the resident £50 compensation for her time and trouble, and £50 for any distress the matter may have caused. It apologised for any inconvenience the matter may have caused and the delay in providing its complaint response. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint to its independent Tenants Panel or this Service if she remained dissatisfied.  

13. The resident responded on 28 February 2021 and explained the following:

  1. She said that she wished to pursue this matter further as she did not feel that £100 compensation was sufficient. She added that there were two separate leaks at the property and several points had been overlooked in the landlord’s responses.
  2. She explained that she had reported the leak at the front of the property to the landlord in October 2020. She advised that the scaffolders had attended, but after seeing that scaffolding had been erected at the next door property, decided not to proceed, this meant that the roofers could not attend. She added that this had nothing to do with Covid-19. Following this, the scaffolding was erected but several roofers did not attend. She said that the work was completed in January 2021, however, there was still the issue of damp and mould inside the property and dampness along the external wall.
  3. Regarding the back of the property, the resident had noticed a damp patch in her bedroom in 2018 when she moved into the property. This was reported promptly to the landlord but had not been resolved. She added that water had now leaked through to the insulation in the roof and the roof would need to be replaced. The resident agreed that there had been a lack of communication and felt that the landlord’s staff could not differentiate between the separate jobs.
  4. She expressed dissatisfaction about the length of time it had taken for the landlord to resolve the leak to the back of her property and added that if this had been fixed sooner, her health would not have been affected and she would not have needed to take time off work. She said that the landlord’s offer of £100 was not sufficient to cover the cost of this or the damage caused to her recently decorated bedroom. She said that she wished to pursue this matter further.

14. The resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed by the Tenant Panel on 14 March 2021. The Tenant Panel provided its response on 14 April 2021 and explained the following:

  1. The panel upheld the resident’s appeal due to the time it had taken the landlord to complete the repairs. It recommended that a more senior officer from the Repairs team visited the resident’s property to listen to her concerns and explain how the landlord would resolve both leaks and provide timescales. It said that this should include a thorough inspection of the roof to determine what caused the leak at the front and back of the property. The panel said that this should take place within 28 days.
  2. The panel added that the landlord had accepted its failures and acknowledged the poor communication between its contractors and the roofers. The panel felt that the landlord’s offer of £100 was in line with its compensation policy. It acknowledged that the resident had requested compensation for the damages caused to the property, the distress caused and for the effect on her physical and mental health. The panel recommended that the resident sought independent advice as it could not award additional compensation under its remit.
  3. The panel also recommended that the landlord should ensure that the installation of scaffolding and the roofers are scheduled to run concurrently to eliminate any future time-wasting. It also recommended that residents should be advised in writing in advance of the date and time of appointments.

15. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2021 and asked for written confirmation that the landlord had completed both roof repairs to a satisfactory standard so that she could pursue a claim with the landlord’s insurer. The landlord’s records show that a further repair appointment was arranged to take place in early August 2021 to inspect the roof and the internal ceiling.

16. As the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s position, she referred the matter to this Service for consideration. Within her referral, the resident said she was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to complete repairs. She was also seeking compensation for the damage to the property and her belongings, the mental distress that dealing with two leaks had caused, the impact the damp had on her health, and additional compensation in recognition of the landlord’s negligence. She also expressed concern that the landlord had not acted in line with the Tenant Panel recommendation to visit the property and inspect the roof within 28 days. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

17. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health, which has also resulted in her having to take time off work. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and the resident’s medical conditions. The resident therefore 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 lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the state of the property was affecting her health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property.

18. The lease states that the landlord would be responsible for the external structure of the property, including the roof. The resident would be responsible for the internal parts of the property.  The landlord’s repair policy states that it has three repair categories; emergency, agreed appointment and planned. Emergency repairs should be carried out within 24 hours and the repair should be made safe. Some follow-on works may be required following this initial appointment. Agreed appointment repairs include all repairs which can be completed in a single visit and should be completed within 28 days. A repair is considered a planned repair when the job must be pre-inspected, for larger components to be measured and manufactured, or where the job may take several days to complete. These repairs should be inspected within 28 days and the resident should be made aware of when the repair would be carried out.

19. In this case, the resident reported a leak to the back of the property in 2018 and has expressed dissatisfaction about the time it has taken for the leak to be resolved. After a repair was completed in August 2019, there was no reports of further leaks until October 2020. As such, the landlord was entitled to assume that the repairs were successful at this stage. The resident is dissatisfied with the delay in resolving the leak between these dates, however, there is no record to suggest that the resident pursued this matter further with the landlord at this time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.

20. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to October 2020 when a further leak from the roof was reported.

21. The landlord has acknowledged that there was poor communication by its contractors when arranging the works from October 2020 onwards and has apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident. There is likely to have been some delay during this period due to the impact of Covid-19 on supplies of materials and available workforce. However, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident regularly updated on when the work would go ahead and the reasons for any delay, which it does not appear to have done. The landlord did explain in its final response to the complaint dated 24 February 2021 that there were delays caused by members of the contractor’s staff shielding during the pandemic. However, this was not clearly explained at the time when the resident was awaiting repairs.

22. The resident was admitted to hospital several times between October 2020 and January 2021 and she made the landlord aware of this. The landlord was aware that the resident suffers from medical conditions which she said were made worse by living in a property affected by damp and mould. It is the established view of this service that landlords should take reasonable steps to support residents who are vulnerable, such as prioritising repairs and offering support and advice to help them improve their living conditions while they are awaiting repairs.

23. In this case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident on how she could make a claim under the buildings insurance policy for her property. The resident may have been able to use the insurance to temporarily move to another property until her property was repaired if, as the resident suggested, her property was uninhabitable due to the damp and mould. The landlord also should have looked to prioritise repairs given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact that there was damp and mould in the property during the coldest months of the year.

24. In its final response to the complaint dated 24 February 2021 the landlord stated that it does not take into account any disabilities or vulnerabilities of leaseholders when scheduling repairs and all repairs are scheduled in date order based on when the repair was first reported. It said this is because not all vulnerabilities are known to the landlord. The landlord went on to say that if residents make its contractors aware of any vulnerabilities when they are on site, the contractors would report this to the landlord and the landlord would consider whether any additional support could be offered. In this case, the landlord’s records confirm it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities prior to October 2020. The resident has said that she also made the contractors aware of her vulnerabilities when they attended but it is not clear from the information provided whether the contractors informed the landlord or this. Whilst the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord could not take into account vulnerabilities which it was not aware of, in this case it was clearly aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have taken steps to support her as set out above.

25. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident for the communication of its contractors. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the repairs needed to the front and back of the property have now been resolved. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and improved its communication following its responses. 

26. The compensation offered by the landlord of £50 for the resident’s time and trouble and £50 for any distress is not proportionate to the service failures identified. The compensation offered is not in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50-£250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, the delays and poor communication were not of short duration and may have affected the outcome as the resident has reported that the damage to the interior of her property has worsened because of the length of time it has taken to resolve the leaks. In view of this, it would be more appropriate for compensation in the range of £250 to £700 to be awarded. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that awards in this range should be considered where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failing to address all aspects of a complaint and failure to carry out repairs over an extended period of time. In view of this, the landlord should increase its offer of compensation to £300 for the failures identified in its handling of repairs relating to the roof leaks.

27. In her communication to this Service, the resident advised that she was seeking additional compensation for damage to the internal décor of the property. This point was raised during the complaints process, but it does not appear to have been addressed by the landlord in its complaint responses. The resident has argued that the damage to the décor was made worse by the delay in fixing the leak and the landlord has not provided satisfactory evidence to counter this allegation. In view of this, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delays contributed to the damage to the décor and that the landlord should either arrange for the internal damage to be repaired or refer the resident’s claim for this damage to its insurer so the insurer can arrange a settlement.

28. The resident has also requested compensation for damage to her belongings. It does not appear from the evidence provided that this was raised during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and therefore the landlord did not have an opportunity to address this in its stage two complaint response.

29. This Service does not have the authority to make legally binding decisions about whether a landlord has been ‘negligent’ in its handling of the repairs as negligence is a specific legal concept which would be more appropriate for a court to decide. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. The landlord should address the resident’s request for compensation for her personal possessions and the additional energy costs because of the leak and confirm its position on this. As the landlord has not yet responded to this point, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s decision was reasonable. If there is a further dispute once the landlord has confirmed its position, the resident may be able to raise a new complaint about this.

30. In her correspondence, the resident raised concerns about contractors missing appointments and failing to complete work as scaffolding had not been placed in advance. The Ombudsman would usually consider an appointment to be missed or failed if the contractor either did not attend or attended but could not compete the repair because of a mistake by the landlord, such as knowingly booking the appointment before other repairs were completed which were necessary for the appointment to go ahead. If this was the case, we would expect the landlord to pay compensation in line with its missed appointments process. However, if the failed appointment was due to an issue beyond the landlord’s control, it would not be expected to compensate for this. For example, where a roof repair appointment does not go ahead due to poor weather conditions.

31. The dates of any missed or failed appointments remain unclear from the evidence provided and therefore it is not possible to assess exactly how many appointments were missed. The difficulty in assessing this is partly due to the lack of repair records provided by the landlord. As we cannot determine exactly how many appointments were missed, we cannot award compensation for each individual missed appointment. However, it would be fair for the landlord to pay an overall award of compensation for the inconvenience any missed appointments and the lack of clear records confirming the dates of appointments and the work carried out on each visit. This has been taken into account as part of the total compensation awarded by the Ombudsman, as set out in more detail below.

32. In summary, there has been significant failures by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property. In this case the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was not proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord should provide further compensation for the resident to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by errors in its communication and the time taken to resolve the issue.

33. It is unclear if the leak at the back of the resident’s property has now been resolved or whether the roof has been inspected. As such, the landlord should arrange for a surveyor to inspect the roof to determine the cause of any ongoing repair issues within the resident’s property within four weeks. The landlord should also address the resident’s request for compensation for damages to her property and belongings, and her increased energy bills which she attributes to the damp.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

34. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two–stage policy for handling complaints. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can ask for their complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s internal process. At stage two, the landlord should provide a response within 25 working days. If at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should write to the resident to explain the reason and provide a new timeframe. The landlord would be expected to address each of the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. Following the landlord’s stage two complaint response, the resident can refer their complaint to the landlord’s Tenant Panel, who can make any additional recommendations, or to this Service.

35. In this case, there was a slight delay in issuing a stage two response, but the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for this delay in its complaint response. However, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint in that it failed to address certain aspects of the resident’s complaint, including her concerns about missed and failed appointments, her additional heating bills due to the damp in the property and her concerns about mould in the property and the effect on her health. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain its position for each aspect in order to manage the resident’s expectations.

36. Furthermore, the landlord failed to follow the Tenant Panel’s recommendation to visit the property to discuss the resident’s concerns and complete an inspection of the roof. Although this was after the landlord’s stage two response, the landlord would be expected to follow the panel’s recommendations or explain why it would not, or could not, follow them. The landlord does not appear to have explained why this did not happen which is likely to have caused further inconvenience for the resident. This has been considered when assessing compensation.

37. There has also been service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. The landlord’s repair records did not distinguish between repairs needed to the front of the property and the back. The landlord also failed to provide evidence of appointment dates or the details of the work completed for each job reference. In this case, the landlord’s poor record keeping appears to have contributed to its failure to distinguish between the two separate repairs in its complaint responses. This may have caused additional uncertainty for the resident as the landlord has not demonstrated that it had investigated its handling of the two separate repairs. These omissions are likely to have inconvenienced the resident as this Service has been unable to fully investigate her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

38. In summary, there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint and record keeping. In view of this, the landlord should offer further compensation to the resident in recognition of the uncertainty and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. Following this complaint, the landlord should review how it responds to the outcome of the tenant panel. It is further recommended that the landlord take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all repairs, including appointment dates and the details of the repair are recorded and retained so that they can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.

Determination (decision)

39.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould at the property.

40. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint and record keeping.

Reasons

41. The landlord has acknowledged its errors in communication about the repairs but has not offered suitable compensation to recognise the inconvenience experienced by the resident by its lack of communication and unexplained delays. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable but did not take any steps to support her in view of this such as prioritising repairs or informing her of how to make a claim under the buildings insurance for the property.

42. The landlord failed to address certain aspects of the resident’s complaint, including her comments regarding damp and mould in the property, missed appointments and her increased energy bills. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord acted on the Tenant Panel’s recommendation that it inspect the roof. This was a significant failing and a missed opportunity to resolve any outstanding repair issues. The landlord also failed to distinguish between the separate repairs which is likely to have caused the resident some confusion and indicates poor record keeping.

 

Orders

43. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £600, comprised of:
    1. £300 in recognition of the time and trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property, including any missed appointments.
    2. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling and record keeping.
  2. The landlord should arrange for a surveyor to inspect the roof to assess whether the leak issues have now been resolved.
  3. If any further repairs are identified, following the surveyors visit, the landlord should draw up a schedule of work for the completion of the outstanding repairs.
  4. The landlord should either arrange for the internal damage to the resident’s property to be repaired or refer the resident’s claim for this damage to its insurer for assessment.
  5. The landlord should refer the resident’s request for compensation for damages to her belongings and increased energy usage because of the leak to its insurer or assess this claim itself and confirm its position to the resident.
  6. The landlord should review how it responds to the recommendations of the tenant panel.

Recommendations

44. It is recommended that the landlord take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all repairs, including appointment dates and the details of the repair are recorded and retained so that they can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.