Haringey London Borough Council (202119223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119223

Haringey Council

21 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with her rear gate and her request to replace the dividing link fence with a wooden fence;
   2. complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The resident reported that her rear fence was broken on 11 May 2021. The landlord’s contractors attended on 26 May 2021. When contractors attended, the resident noted she had experience antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour, and so requested that the chain link fence between her property and her neighbour’s be replaced with a six-foot wooden panel fence. The request was passed on to the landlord.
4. The resident made a formal complaint on 24 August 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the lack of progress with repairs to her rear gate, and the lack of response regarding her fence be replaced.
5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 30 September 2021. It apologised for the delays to the works to her rear gate, and for the lack of updates and communication. The landlord further assured the resident that such works would be carried out promptly and that an appointment had been booked for 1 November 2021. The landlord also informed the resident that her request to install a wooden fence was approved, and works would commence on the same date as the gate repairs.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on the basis that she had installed a fence on her own in the absence of any updates from the landlord, and that she wished to be reimbursed for the cost, being £1,920.
7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 26 January 2022. It acknowledged the delays and poor communication in relation to the repairs to the rear gate and reiterated its apology. The landlord also explained that the replacement with a wooden fence was considered an improvement rather than a repair which required consideration and approval, leading to delays in responding to the resident. The landlord further informed her that her request to be reimbursed for the cost of the fence had been declined. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays in completing the works to her rear gate and £200 for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
8. The resident referred her case to this service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to reimburse her for the cost of the fence and with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Rear gate and wooden fence

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs requiring a pre-inspection for larger components to be measured and manufactured are included in the planned repairs category. In case of planned repairs, the landlord will inspect the issue within 28 days and provide a timescale of when the job will be completed at the time of the inspection.
10. In this case, it is not disputed that there had been delays to the repairs to the resident’s rear gate and a lack of communication from the landlord.
11. The resident first reported that her rear gate was broken on 11 May 2021. The landlord’s contractors appropriately attended the resident’s property to inspect the gate on 26 May 2021, within the landlord’s timescales. Following this, however, there had been a lack of progression in the repairs and a lack of communication from the landlord between May and October 2021.
12. It is not evident why this delay occurred. In any case, when a delay is to occur, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide an update to the resident as to why there is a delay, and provide an updated timescale. In this case, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractors did not inform the resident of when works would be undertaken, nor did the landlord update the resident at any time between May and October 2021 as to the progress of the repairs. This would have caused frustration for the resident and caused her to expend time and trouble in chasing updates.
13. In its formal responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings, namely the delay and its lack of communication, and attempted to put things right by apologising and by offering £250 compensation.
14. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
15. In addition to the repair issues relating to the rear gate, the Ombudsman notes that the resident requested through the landlord’s contractor for a wooden fence to be installed.
16. The resident’s tenancy agreement differentiates between repairs and improvements. While a landlord is responsible for certain repairs, it is not obligated to carry out improvements. The replacement of the chain fence with a wooden fence would be considered an improvement rather than a repair.
17. The landlord does not have a policy which provides a timeframe for considering requests for an improvement. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to provide its position within a reasonable timeframe, which will be dependent on the circumstances.
18. In this case, the landlord, in its stage one response, approved the resident’s request and was willing to install the wooden fence. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord appropriately used its discretion by accepting the resident’s request, given the distress experienced by the resident because of the ASB she experienced.
19. The Ombudsman further notes that before the landlord issued its stage one response, the resident installed a wooden fence at her own expense without requesting permission or otherwise informing the landlord. Her subsequent request to be reimbursed for the cost of this fence was declined by the landlord.
20. The Ombudsman understands that the resident installed the fence because of her concerns about ASB and understands the resident’s frustration that the landlord had delayed in its response to her request for a fence. Nevertheless, the landlord did not have the opportunity to provide its consent for the fence, and it is not evident that it is obligated to contribute to the cost of the improvement without prior agreement. The landlord has an obligation to use it funds appropriately and effectively and it is understood that the fence it intended to install would not necessarily have cost the same amount as the resident’s.
21. In summary, the landlord used its discretion appropriately when agreeing to install a wooden fence, and following it learning the resident had installed her own, it was reasonable for it to decline her request to cover the cost. While it would have been helpful to have provided its position prior to its stage one response, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation offered by the landlord in relation to distress and inconvenience amounts to reasonable redress for the landlord’s poor communication in relation to both the rear gate repairs and the fence request.

Complaint handling

22. According to the Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints handling, the landlord should issue a stage one and stage two response within 20 working days of the resident’s complaint or escalation request.
23. In this case, it is not disputed that there had been delays by the landlord with regard to its complaints handling. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 August 2021, and the landlord issued its stage one response on 30 September 2021, namely after 27 working days.
24. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to communicate to the resident whether a delay is expected and to provide the reasons for its delay. In this case, the landlord not only failed to do so, but when the resident requested an update on her complaint, it did not respond to the resident’s queries, which would have caused frustration to the resident. The landlord also failed to provide the reasons for its delay in its stage one response.
25. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to provide clear information in its formal responses about the resident’s options to escalate the complaint. However, while the landlord’s stage one response noted the resident had the option to contact it regarding its response, it did not provide the resident with any information about her right to escalate the complaint to stage two.
26. The Ombudsman notes that the lack of information with regard to the escalation request caused confusion and a lack of clarity. Indeed, the resident responded to the landlord’s formal response on 17 October 2021, stating her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response.
27. While the resident did not specifically request her complaint to be escalated, it is evident that she wanted to discuss her concerns further, and it would have been best practice for the landlord to communicate with the resident in order to ascertain whether the resident wanted to escalate her complaint. In this instance, the landlord failed to do so and also failed to respond to the resident’s request for updates about her complaint made on 8 November 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is further evidence of the landlord’s poor complaint handling and lack of communication.
28. The landlord, following the intervention of this service, ultimately escalated the resident’s complaint on 13 December 2021 and issued a stage two response on 26 January 2022. This was after a total of 30 working days, which was still outside of the Housing Ombudsman Guidance. As noted above, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide updates on potential delays. The landlord, in this case, failed to do so.
29. The landlord, however, in its stage two response, appropriately acknowledged its delay in issuing its formal responses and apologised. Nevertheless, given the reiterated failures of the landlord with regard to its poor complaint handling and the lack of communication, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to remedy its failings by further offering financial compensation to the resident, which in this case did not occur. This amounted to a service failure in the circumstances.
30. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £70 compensation, being £50 to reflect its poor complaints handling and poor communication with the resident and £20 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. These amounts are considered proportionate in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with regard to its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with her rear gate and her request to replace the dividing link fence with a wooden fence, that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £70 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its poor complaints handling.
34. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

35. The landlord is strongly recommended to reiterate its offer of £250 compensation made in its final stage complaint response.
36. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive complaints policies and compensation procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures.