Haringey London Borough Council (202108819)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108819

Haringey London Borough Council

29 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:
    1. The landlords response to the resident’s reports of repair to his property.
    2. The landlords response to the resident’s concerns of its use of the sinking fund.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, the lease started on 14 March 2016. The property is a 1 bed third floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, who, in contact with the Ombudsman stated he had dyslexia. The landlord has confirmed, according to their records the flat was sold in April 2022 to a limited company.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 2 August 2021, the resident advised a list of outstanding repairs and that he had been paying into the sinking fund and wanted to know where all the money went. The Ombudsman then subsequently requested the landlord respond to the residents complaint by 15 September 2021.
  3. According to the landlord the resident had not raised the repairs prior to raising a complaint with the Ombudsman on 2 August 2021. The repairs listed by the resident to be outstanding were:
    1. A broken front window.
    2. A hole in the roof.
    3. He required a fan, as plaster fell off the wall when he used the bath.
    4. The ceiling was falling down in the bathroom.
    5. The landlord had agreed to change the boiler, but instead provided a temporary boiler, which had not been plumbed in and the water was only warm and took hours to warm up.
    6. This boiler made a lot of noise.
    7. He had wires hanging out of the bedroom wall.
    8. There was a large tree in front of the property that needed to be cut down.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 21 September 2021, after trying to call the resident without success. It confirmed it had responsibility to repair the hole in the roof and the broken window, both of which, it said had not been reported to it prior to this complaint. It confirmed jobs had been booked in to assess the repair and if it could not be repaired on the day, follow up works would be booked in. It clarified that sinking funds are set aside for future major works and day to day repairs are covered by the landlord when responsible. The landlord confirmed the remaining repairs referenced by the Ombudsman would be the leaseholders responsibility. It concluded by advising a job was raised for the tree to be pruned, the completion date of this job was 1 December 2021.
  5. Following this response the resident contacted the Ombudsman “in distress” due to the condition of his property. Between 4 October 2021 and 23 March 2022 numerous communications were made between the Ombudsman and both parties. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 25 February 2022 which requested he confirm what the current issues were in order for it to review his complaint. The landlord did not receive a response from the resident to this letter.
  6. Following a request from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 April 2022. It advised its review was on the information available as it had no response to its previous correspondence and what the Ombudsman had advised was outstanding. The landlord confirmed as per its stage 1 response, an appointment was booked to assess the leak from the roof but the landlord could not access the property and a card was left for the resident to rebook the appointment. As it received no further contact form the resident this job was closed therefore the landlord could find no fault in its actions. It advised a neighbour had raised a similar repair recently about a roof leak and a job had been booked in, the landlord advised access to flats to assess leaks was required to narrow down where a roof defect was likely to be as it was difficult to detect from the roof only. It advised if any work arose from this he would be notified.
  7. The resident contact the Ombudsman on 22 March 2022 and requested his complaint be investigated. He advised he wanted compensation and his complaint was about:
    1. The landlords handling of the condition of the property following a leak.
    2. The landlords handling of the sinking fund.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident, in communications to the Ombudsman referred to an issue with cladding on the property. It was noted he would make a separate complaint at a later date. No evidence has been seen to show this was brought as a complaint to the landlord, therefore this issue will not be investigated. A landlord must have the opportunity to resolve a complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure before the Ombudsman can assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42 (a) which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

The landlords response to the resident’s reports of repair to his property

  1. The terms of the lease agreement describe the responsibilities of the resident and the landlord in relation to the upkeep of the property. This confirms that the resident is responsible for the upkeep of the internal fixtures and fittings, which would include plasterwork to internal walls and that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the fabric of the building, which would include the roof.
  2. The landlords website advises leaseholders that it is responsible for maintaining the outside of the building and if the outside of the building is faulty, for example, a leaking roof, which has affected the inside of the property, the interior work is also likely to be the landlords responsibility.
  3. Although it is not clear why the resident did not report these repairs direct to his landlord via the phone, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise the required jobs following correspondence from the Ombudsman. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response letter which repairs it was responsible for and when these jobs were booked in for. According to its process map for booking repairs, the resident would have been notified by text of these jobs also.
  4. The terms of the lease agreement say that the resident must allow access to permit the landlord, at reasonable times and upon at least 48 hours written notice for the purpose of repair. It is not clear why the resident did not allow access on 17 September 2021 and again on 24 September 2021 for the repairs reported to be assessed by the landlord. The landlord left no access cards on each visit as per its process and when it did not receive a response from the resident, these jobs were subsequently cancelled, again which was in line with its policy.
  5. The landlord has advised it arranged for a support worker to contact the resident alongside its feedback team and repairs team to try and resolve this complaint whilst in communication with the Ombudsman. There was no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord direct to discuss his complaint or the repairs at any time throughout the time of this complaint. Instead the resident contacted the Ombudsman for his complaint to be progressed. The landlord requested via letter also for the resident to confirm his outstanding issues for it to be looked into at stage 2, which was reasonable in the circumstance. Its subsequent final response was provided in which it explained due to having no contact with the resident it had found no failure in its actions.
  6. There is no evidence of service failure from the landlord in its response to the reports of repair. It acted in line with its process and attempted to fulfil its obligations under the lease agreement to complete repairs. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had made several attempts to contact the resident, it acknowledged that its contact details may not have been up to date for the resident but it also communicated in writing which was reasonable. The failed appointments were due to the lack of engagement from the resident, which made it challenging for the landlord to carry out any assessment of the repairs and therefore this was outside its control.

The landlords response to the resident’s concerns of its use of the sinking fund.

  1. The terms of the lease agreement confirms that the resident is obliged to pay toward a cost that the landlord would reasonably expect to incur in replacing or maintaining the fabric of the building. On contacting the Ombudsman the resident said he had been paying into the fund and wanted to know what had happened to the money. The landlord clarified in its stage 1 response on 21 September 2021, that the sinking fund was used for planned major works. Although the landlord did not mention the sinking fund in its stage 2 response, the lack of engagement from the resident meant it could not have reasonably been expected to understand what his direct concerns about it were.
  2. The landlord provided evidence of the annual service charge booklet which was sent to the resident. This booklet details a breakdown of the estimated costs and list numerous contact details for if the resident had any queries. It also includes a section on the use of a sinking fund. Therefore the landlord has demonstrated it communicated clearly to the resident about the costs involved at his property. Overall, the landlord has addressed the resident’s queries and complaint about the use of the sinking fund in an appropriate way.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repair to his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns of its handling of the sinking fund.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord consider that in cases where a landlord does not gain access to inspect a report a roof leak, it proactively contacts the resident to obtain an update and to rearrange the appointment as necessary.
  2. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman of its intentions regards to the above recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.