Haringey Council (202101286)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101286

Haringey Council

27 January 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rainwater getting into his flat.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat within a building that is owned and managed by the landlord.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Lease:

This sets out the general obligation on the landlord to maintain and repair the structure of the building including the roof and external walls.

Repairs Handbook:

This sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and outside parts of the property such as walls and roof.
The landlord has four repair categories:
1. Out of hours – refers to a job which is so urgent that it cannot wait until the next working day. Examples include burst pipes or major water leaks.
2. Emergency – refers to a repair which puts a person or property at risk during the day. We will attend within 24 hours of you reporting it and will attempt to complete the repair on our first visit.
3. Agreed appointment – this includes nearly everything else which can be completed in a single visit. An appointment will be offered within 28 days. This category includes a roof leak.
4. Planned repairs – we will inspect within 28 days and tell you at the inspection when the job will be carried out.
Under the ‘Leaks’ section of the handbook its states that leaks are one of the most common and most annoying problems reported by its tenants and they take too long to sort out. It explains that ‘now we are being much firmer on this. Tell us where the leak is coming from and how bad it is, and we’ll agree a time to come round and fix it. If necessary, we will force entry, and recharge the person causing the problem for repairing the leak and the damage to the door’.

Summary of events

The resident has said that a leak was first reported to the landlord in December 2019. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence from either the landlord or the resident about this report. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that this issue was pursued by the resident through the landlord’s complaints process at that time.
The available repair records show that a report of a leak emanating from the property above the resident’s flat was logged on 5 November 2020. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate how it responded to this report at this particular time.
The evidence that is available, shows that the resident logged a formal complaint on 14 January 2021 due to delays in carrying out the repair. The resident explained that rainwater was getting into his property through the ceiling and around the window. This issue was first notified in December 2019 and has been reported to the landlord several times after this.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 28 January 2021:
1. It apologised for the ‘issues you have been experiencing and for any inconvenience caused’ and it upheld the complaint. It also said that due to staff changes it could not fully explain what had gone wrong.
2. It acknowledged previous failures to address the problem and it explained that there was an issue with defective asphalt above the resident’s flat that needed to be remedied before a plasterer could attend to address the internal repairs.
3. It said that a contractor had been appointed for the asphalt repair and they had been instructed to prioritise the job as best they can and they will be in direct contact to complete the repair. Once the external work was done it would then complete the internal plastering.
4. It pointed out that the plastering work may be impacted by any COVID 19 restrictions and government guidelines in place at the time.
5. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had said that the rainwater ingress had caused damage inside the flat. It provided its insurance details in order for the resident to make a claim for loss/damage to personal items.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 January 2021 and accepted the complaint response. The resident also asked the landlord to double check and ensure that the asphalt repair work was carried out to the correct part of the building. He said that on a previous occasion, the landlord had sent the contractor to the wrong side of the building.
The resident reiterated his concerns on 2 February 2021 as he had not received any reassurance from the landlord. He said that the tenant in the flat with the problem had been unwilling to engage with the landlord previously to allow access for the repair, and therefore he wanted to be sure that the landlord had factored this in and was working with this tenant to ensure access was provided.
The landlord responded on 9 February 2021 and said that the resident’s email had been passed on to the Continuous Improvement Manager to ‘read, advise and respond to’.
On 11 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to check if the access issues with the tenant above had been progressed as he had been notified that a contractor was due to attend on 24 February 2021. The resident asked for a manager to contact him with an update as he was not clear on when the repair would be completed.
The landlord acknowledged this and advised the resident that the email had been passed on to the Continuous Improvement Manager for a response.
On 22 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team seeking an update.
The limited repair records provided by the landlord show that a contractor attended between 24 and 26 February to carry out an inspection of the above flat. The landlord’s submissions do not contain any further details about the repair after this point.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 final complaint response on 1 April 2021:
1. The landlord noted that the resident had said that this issue had been initially reported in December 2019. However, despite its inquiries, it did not have enough information to provide a detailed response.
2. It accepted that there had been failings on its part to properly manage the repair and ensure it maintained an open dialog with the resident. It accepted that there had been communication failures and that this was an oversight and was due to pressures through staff shortages and increased repair volumes. The landlord apologised for the communication breakdown.
3. It confirmed that repairs were presently being arranged but it could not confirm a date as yet. But it had been provided assurances that it would be treated with urgency. Further confirmation of the repair date would be communicated by 8 April 2021.
4. It reiterated that the resident could submit an insurance claim on the landlord’s policy for the internal damage within the flat.
5. It apologised for not being able to confirm a date for the repair and reiterated that its contractor would be in touch shortly about this. It confirmed that this was its final response.
The resident then referred his complaint to this Service on 13 April 2021. He summarised his complaint as being about the landlord’s mishandling of his reports about water getting into his flat due to problems with the flat above his. He said that the landlord had failed to carry out satisfactory repairs to address the issue and had, for example, sent round the wrong contractor and had failed to identify the correct source of the water ingress.
At the time of the referral to this Service the resident stated that the repair had still not been completed. The landlord has provided this Service with evidence to show that repairs were carried out to the correct walkway/balcony above the resident’s flat in June 2021.
The landlord has said that the external repair was inspected by a surveyor in September 2021 and signed off. The resident has confirmed that the external repair has been done, but the landlord has not carried out any internal work to address the water staining on the ceiling and wall(s).
The landlord’s repair records show that, as at September 2021, the affected external area should now be sufficiently dry and ready for remedial works, and that ‘the leaseholder has been advised to carry out redecorating or file an insurance claim’.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports and this includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman is guided by its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
Looking at the facts of this case, the first point to note is that the landlord’s repair responsibilities in respect of the resident’s reports require it to ensure that there are no external defects or issues with the structure of the building (within the parts it is responsible for) that may be causing, or contributing, to the water getting into the resident’s flat. Where such defects/structural issues are identified, the landlord should ensure that it addresses the problem in accordance with its repairs policy and/or within a reasonable time.
In this case, the landlord’s records are very patchy and limited, but from what can be evidenced, there is a report of a leak in early November 2020. The landlord has failed to provide any further evidence to demonstrate how it responded to this report. The lack of any repair records around this time means that there is no evidence to show that the landlord responded appropriately to this report.
In its submissions to this Service the landlord has sought to explain that it had some difficulties in diagnosing the correct location and the cause of the issue that was causing the water ingress into the resident’s flat. It has also said that its management of the tenant in the flat above (which was eventually confirmed as the cause of the leak) ‘could have been better’ and it could have dealt with the issue as more of a priority.
The landlord’s admission of failure in this regard is duly acknowledged, but it is clear that on this occasion the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy as referenced above, in that it did not take a firm approach to the situation and there was an unreasonable delay in taking appropriate action to address the problem. This unreasonable delay has only prolonged the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
There is reference within the landlord’s submissions to this Service that it has tried to complete the repair within a reasonable time and this was hampered by factors such as there being more than one possible contributing factor causing the water ingress. There was also misinformation provided to the landlord from the neighbouring property which had added to the delay in correctly assessing the root cause of the water ingress.
The landlord’s comments are noted, however, it is ultimately responsible for ensuring that it discharges its repair responsibilities within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the landlord has not provided sufficiently detailed evidence of its actions in response to the repair reports and its attempts to address the issue with the tenant in the flat above. Nor has it sufficiently demonstrated that it had kept the resident well informed of developments and the steps it was taking. On the contrary, the landlord has accepted that it failed to keep the resident updated and that there was a lack of communication with the resident, which ultimately led to the resident having to raise a formal complaint. It must also be noted that during this time the resident was still living at the property and experiencing ad-hoc water ingress during periods of heavy rain.
The underlying issue here is that the landlord’s records are not clear and do not support the landlord’s view that it has tried to deal with this matter as best it could. The need for good record-keeping cannot be emphasised enough and it is important not only so that the landlord can provide an efficient and timely service to its tenants, but it also allows for an accurate audit trail of its decision-making after the event which can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The landlord is therefore reminded of the need to ensure that it maintains clear and accurate records of its actions.
Looking at the available evidence, a report was logged on 5 November 2020 and by the time the final complaint was issued, in April 2021, the necessary repairs were still outstanding. Indeed, the external repair was not completed until mid-June 2021, which is approximately seven months later. The landlord’s explanations for the delay have been considered, but without any adequate supporting evidence to demonstrate why it took seven months, the Ombudsman can only reasonably conclude that there is maladministration – the landlord has failed to respond appropriately to the repair report and has failed to carry out the repair within a timely manner.
Looking at all the evidence that is available and taking an overall view on the landlord’s handling of this matter, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged its failure to complete the repairs in a timely manner and it has apologised for this. In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it had taken too long to complete the repairs, apologised for the delay so far and reaffirmed its commitment to complete the repairs as a priority. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord upheld the complaint, its complaint response did not go far enough in terms of identifying the service failures, putting these failures right and demonstrating that there had been learning from the complaint. Furthermore, it also did not consider if compensation was appropriate in recognition of its accepted failings.
The landlord has not provided a copy of its compensation policy, but in any event, the Ombudsman has the discretion to determine the most appropriate remedy given the circumstances of the complaint. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation for the maladministration, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including the inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
Taking into account all the above factors, and the Ombudsman considers that an award of £400 compensation would be appropriate in this case.
On a final note, the resident has said that whilst the external works have been completed, the issue of the internal damage remains outstanding. It is noted that the landlord has advised the resident in its complaint responses that the resident would need to submit a claim to the landlord’s insurer for the internal damage. The Ombudsman considers that this was an appropriate response to this issue.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of rainwater getting into his flat.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it completed the repairs, monitor the progress of the works, keep proper repair records and communicate effectively with the resident to resolve the issue in line with its repairs policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of any inconvenience caused by the maladministration identified in its handling of the resident’s repair reports.
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks

Recommendations

Given the findings noted above, the landlord is asked to consider the issues raised in this case and look at how it can improve its record-keeping so as to ensure that it can adequately demonstrate the actions it takes in response to a repair request.

If it has not already done so recently, the landlord should contact the resident and provide further assistance with pursuing an insurance claim against its policy for the internal damage.