Haringey London Borough Council (202106418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106418

Haringey London Borough Council

30 August 2023

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:
1. Water ingress, damp and outstanding repairs at the property;
2. A rat infestation in and around the property;
3. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant in a two bedroom flat, which she shares with her daughter. Her tenancy began in March 2002.
The resident has several health conditions including depression, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Legal and Policy Framework

The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Policy sets out its approaches to preventing ASB. These include: identifying ASB hotspots and target them with preventative work, as well as effective case management, investing significantly in a quality CCTV system and working with the Council and other agencies to cut crime in the neighbourhood. The policy also states that the landlord works with other organisations to provide support, including Victim Support.
The policy outlines a number of ASB case management priorities, and these include the following:

The initial interview must include a vulnerability assessment;
The initial interview must include a re-contact plan agreed with the resident and the periods of contact must not exceed one working week for urgent and/or high risk cases and monthly for non-urgent and medium or low risk cases;
An action plan must be agreed with the complainant at the initial interview. Diary sheets will only be issued as part of the action planning process if they and their use are understood and there is an agreed frequency of collection by Housing Officers in line with the re-contact periods.

Summary of events

On 12 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that a plasterer had attended to complete repairs following a leak from a balcony into her living room and kitchen. She stated that the plasterer was unable to do any work as the walls were still very wet. She attached video evidence and added that both the plasterer and an electrician who visited earlier had told her that the damp would never dry out. She stated that the stress of constantly having to redecorate and keep the damp at bay had caused some of her health problems and that she was looking to take the landlord to court for her health problems which started six months after she moved in.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 7 November 2020 to raise a stage one complaint. In her email, she stated the following:
1. Every room in her property was damp, water was pouring through her ceiling and there were ‘hundreds of large black flies’.
2. She had redecorated her flat over 16 times and spent a lot of money replacing furniture. Along with anti-social behaviour (ASB) where her car was constantly targeted, it had put an immense strain on her.
3. The resident added that pipes had burst in her bedroom, kitchen and living room and, although she was told all the pipes needed to be changed, this had never happened.
4. She currently had a leak in her living room and kitchen, which was coming from an overflow pipe on the roof. There was also a balcony above those rooms, where rain water would build up and flow through her ceiling.
5. There was also a disabled lift directly behind her bedroom wall, which caused a noise nuisance.
6. The resident said she lived above a car park, which was riddled with rats.
7. She stated that her ill health started six months after she moved into the property and her daughter had been under the care of a cardiologist. She added that, because of her worsening health, she was given an asthma pump.
On 16 November 2020, the resident wrote again to say that she had contacted the police to report ASB and that they would be making contact with the landlord to advise that she needed to be moved from the property.
The resident wrote on 3 December 2020 to chase up the response to her stage one complaint and the landlord responded on 4 December 2020. It said it was sorry to hear she had been targeted by people on the estate, including neighbours from a nearby flat, and that someone had put a firework through her bamboo fence. It confirmed that the police had emailed the landlord with a crime reference number but said that, as they had not identified any perpetrators, the police would not follow up on the incident. It added that the police said the landlord should consider moving the resident from the estate and confirmed it would send the details to its Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 17 December 2020, which stated the following:
1. It apologised for the poor service the resident had received regarding the recurring leaks that had damaged her property.
2. It said it had attended on several occasions to address the drainage issues and leaks that were affecting her property and confirmed additional works were required to resolve the problem.
3. The landlord stated it had arranged for a surveyor to visit on 22 December 2020 to carry out an inspection and would arrange for the outstanding repairs to be attended to. It added that, once the repairs were completed, it would contact the resident again to arrange for works to make good any decorative damage.
4. It explained that the drainage issue was caused by some residents at the block misusing the drains and that, in order to prevent future blockages, it had instructed its contractor to clear and maintain the drains on a monthly basis.
5. The Housing Liaison Officer had been in contact with the resident regarding her concerns about pests and made a referral to the Pest Control team so it could arrange appropriate treatment.
6. It said that it had logged an ASB case and it would investigate the matter to establish the cause and action that was required.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 March 2021 to report that there was a dead rat by the bins near the playground, that it had been there for two days and that the caretaker had not removed it. She wrote again on 28 March 2021 to report that there were rats on her patio and ‘loads running around outside the bedroom’.
A solicitor acting on behalf of the resident wrote to the landlord on 10 June 2021 to instruct it to inspect the property on behalf of the resident, who wanted to bring a housing conditions claim against it. It added that it was using the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims. Following a disrepair claim inspection on 27 July 2021, the solicitor sent the report to the landlord on 18 August 2021.
Following negotiations between November 2021 and January 2022 to agree a settlement, the solicitor wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2022 to confirm that the resident was happy to accept the landlord’s offer of £3000 in full and final settlement of the damages claim, the works to be completed within 90 days and payment of legal costs. It said it understood the landlord’s view that the resident did not need to be decanted while works were carried out and advised that it reconsider this in light of the solicitor’s own surveyor’s report.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2022 and stated that:
1. She had written to the landlord many times over the last 20 years since being forced to move into the property, which she moved into as a healthy person with a young daughter.
2. She stated that, from the beginning, there was water was pouring through the ceiling and severe damp and mould, with black flies everywhere. She had advised the landlord of the condition of the property, the ASB and her rapidly deteriorating health.
3. Within a year of moving into the flat, she started getting chronic ear infections and was later found to have a tumour.
4. She wanted to make a formal complaint about how the property had affected her health.
The landlord wrote to the solicitor on 16 February 2022 to say that any decant would complicate and delay matters as it would take a while to source alternative temporary accommodation. It said it had asked its surveyor if he felt the works could be carried out without the need for a decant.
The solicitor responded on 10 March 2022 enclosing a letter from the resident’s GP to support its request for the resident to be moved to alternative accommodation while works were carried out. It asked the landlord to respond with its position on a decant, carrying out a health and safety assessment and to give a start date for the works. The solicitor sent a further email, on 8 April 2022, stating that it had been three weeks since it last heard from the landlord and highlighted the severity of the disrepair. It stated that there was a constant smell of sewage around the property, where waste from the pipes had been pouring out for several weeks. There were also warning signs around all the gas pipes but the residents had not been told why.
After chasing the landlord several times for a response to queries about a decant, health and safety assessment and start date for works, the solicitor wrote to the landlord on 7 July 2022 to say that, ever since both parties had agreed a settlement offer in February 2022, they had been chasing the landlord for an update. The solicitor stated that it would be preparing funding for Legal Aid for the resident and prepare papers to issue proceedings.
In August and September 2022, there was further correspondence between the solicitor and landlord regarding a decant. The landlord agreed to the request for a decant and offered pet friendly hotel accommodation; however, the solicitor stated this was unsuitable as the resident could not live in a hotel for the four week period that the repairs were expected to take.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 September 2022 to say that she was unhappy with her stage one response of 17 December 2020 and wished to escalate her concerns. She was unhappy with the way the landlord had dealt with her reports about ASB and that it had still not carried out any repairs relating to the damp and mould in her property.
On 22 September 2022, the landlord sent the resident a complaint response that addressed the resident’s reports of ASB. It stated the following:
1. It understood the resident’s complaint was that she experienced ASB on the estate and constant threats and intimidation from local gangs. It was affecting her health and, as a result, she was requesting an urgent transfer.
2. The landlord said it had tried to call her to get additional information on the ASB she had experienced, along with crime reference numbers. It said it would contact her again and then request further details from the police to support her reports so it could present the evidence to the decision panel with her request for a transfer.
3. It added that it would ask for increased patrols from its Safer Neighbourhood team to deal with any ASB on the estate.
The landlord sent a further response, which it referred to as its stage two complaint response, on 10 October 2022, which stated the following:
1. It understood from the resident’s complaint that, due to the poor condition of her property and ASB on her estate, she wished to move. It also understood that the resident’s health had been made worse by the damp in the property and wanted to know if this had been factored in as part of the initial settlement.
2. It confirmed that, as part of the disrepair claim, both parties settled in February 2022 for a sum of £3000 and the resident wanted a decant while the works were carried out.
3. The landlord stated that its legal service explained that there was no mention by the resident’s solicitor of ASB issues on the estate and that her health issues were not considered as part of the settlement as she had made no personal injury claim.
4. It said that, following its inspection on 23 August 2022, the surveyor did not recommend a decant as the works could be done while the property was occupied.
5. It had assigned the works to its contractor but, unfortunately, the contractor had returned these back because its contract was ending and it did not wish to over commit to existing jobs. It stated that it was in the process of procuring new contractors but that this had taken longer than expected.
6. It said that her ASB concerns had been dealt with under a separate complaint and that her tenancy manager had contacted her and requested further information from the police to support her request for a transfer. It reiterated that it would ask its Safer Neighbourhood team to increase patrols on the estate.
7. The landlord said that, despite the challenges around contractors, it admitted the service had been at fault for its delay in progressing the outstanding repairs. It apologised for the delay but said it could not provide her with a specific timeline for when works would start. It added that the repairs would commence as soon as a contractor was appointed.
The solicitor wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2022 and 9 January 2023 to request an urgent update on the offer of temporary accommodation. Following a decision panel meeting on 13 January 2023, the landlord wrote back to the solicitor on 9 February 2023 to confirm that the panel had approved a decant for the resident.
On 4 August 2023, the resident provided the Ombudsman with evidence that her solicitor had informed her, on 20 April 2023, that it had issued a claim to the County Court and was waiting for the Court to confirm the claim had been received and sent to the landlord.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Water ingress, damp and outstanding repairs at the property;
A rat infestation in communal areas.

Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has raised, or had the opportunity to raise, the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
Paragraph 53(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the complaint is no longer within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. On 20 April 2023, the resident, through her solicitors, issued proceedings in the County Court for an order relating to the abovementioned matters and for damages (compensation). The resident provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the Notice of Issue that shows it was received by the court on 10 May 2023.
The Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint that is subject to legal proceedings. This is because the court will be making a decision on the matter and it would neither be fair or proportionate for the Ombudsman to consider the matter separately. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the matters raised in the formal complaint form part of the legal proceedings and the resident will have the opportunity to raise those issues in court.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that her health deteriorated after she moved into the property and asserts that the problems she has experienced in her property have caused a deterioration of her health conditions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health but this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.
Following reports by the resident of anti-social behaviour on the estate and a police recommendation that she should be moved, the resident has requested a transfer to alternative accommodation. The Housing Ombudsman would only consider complaints regarding transfer applications that are outside Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This is because the landlord is the Local Authority and the LGSCO can consider complaints concerning applications for re–housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications. Since her transfer request falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.

ASB

The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord in November 2020 to state that she had reported to the police that she had been targeted by people in her neighbourhood and that someone had put a firework through her fence. The landlord acted appropriately in liaising with the police and forwarding the police information onto its ASB team. It is also positive to note that the landlord agreed to arrange for increased patrols of the estate by the Safer Neighbourhood team.
However, there is nothing in the records to indicate that the landlord took sufficient action in response to the resident’s reports of “constant threats and intimidation from local gangs”. It was aware she had vulnerabilities; however, there is no indication the landlord made any referrals to agencies that may have been able to offer support, such as Victim Support. There is nothing in the records to suggest the landlord carried out a risk assessment to determine the level of impact the ASB was having both on the resident and her daughter.
In addition, although the landlord assured the resident it had sent the police information to its ASB team, there is no evidence there was any follow-up by that team, or that the landlord properly considered the advice from the policeor progressed a housing transfer request with the Council. Although the records suggest that the landlord’s intention was to contact the resident and the police to gather more information about the ASB in order to support a re-housing application,the evidence does not indicate that this happened, or that there was any attempt by the landlord to gather additional information.
The landlord could have provided the resident with diary sheets when she first reported the ASB. Instead, contrary to the undertaking it makes in its ASB policy, it failed to take any meaningful action in response to the resident’s reports for around nine months. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to agree an action plan or agree how it would handle her ASB reports and support her going forward. There is nothing in the records to show that the landlord made attempts to gather information from other residents about local gang activity or that it considered additional security measures, such a installing additional CCTV. In addition there is no evidence the landlord approached or spoke to the neighbours who were allegedly responsible for the ASB the resident had experienced.
Given her vulnerabilities, not only did this put the resident and her daughter at risk for longer than necessary and leave her to experience the distress of continued ASB in the estate, its failure to appropriately react to the resident’s reports was also a clear failure by the landlord to follow its own policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and outstanding repairs at the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to a rat infestation, in and around the property, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Reasons

As the resident has, though her solicitor, made a claim to the County Court, the concerns regarding disrepair are subject to ongoing legal proceedings.
As the resident has, though her solicitor, made a claim to the County Court, the concerns regarding a rat infestation are subject to ongoing legal proceedings.
The landlord failed to take appropriate action following reports of ASB by the resident and failed to follow its own ASB policy. It could not demonstrate that it took any steps to gather evidence, make referrals to the appropriate support services or explore a housing transfer with the Council following advice by the police.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident, within four weeks of receiving this determination, £600 for its failure to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB and the distress caused by the landlord’s lack of action.
The landlord to contact the resident with regard to any current and/or ongoing ASB concerns she has and to carry out a risk assessment, provide her with the means by which she can record incidents, such as diary sheets, and agree an action plan on how the landlord can support her in dealing with the ASB issue and the impact this is having on her. The landlord to ensure it offers to refer the resident to relevant support services, such as Victim Support. The landlord to report back to the Ombudsman on its actions, within eight weeks of receiving this determination.
A senior member of staff to apologise to the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, in line with this Service’s guidance that:

An apology should be made by the landlord as a body, rather than an identified member of staff
An apology should acknowledge the maladministration or service failure; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret.
Where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure it does not happen again.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide training to staff on how to work with vulnerable residents in order to identify and provide appropriate support when they are experiencing ASB, to ensure the landlord makes referrals to the appropriate organisations and networks.