Haringey London Borough Council (202120060)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120060

Haringey London Borough Council

20 April 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 repair issues in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a three bedroom flat situated on the second floor.
The resident became the tenant of the property via mutual exchange on 5 April 2021.

Summary of events

On 26 August 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to register a complaint regarding its response to his reports of repair issues in the property. In summary the resident said:
1. The property had structural damage including defective plaster, cracked ceilings and “crumbling” walls.
2. The property “smelt damp”.
3. The front door had not been replaced despite the landlord agreeing that it needed replacing “over two months ago”.
4. During a recent repair appointment (date not given) the attending contractor witnessed the “severity of the issues”. He confirmed that the contractor’s conclusions were documented in a report. In respect of the appointment he noted that he had received a call on the morning of the appointment informing him that it had been cancelled, however this turned out not to be the case. He explained that despite the call the contractor did attend for the appointment however he was out. He confirmed that the contractor luckily reattended later that day when he was home.
5. On 25 August 2021 he spoke with a customer service advisor regarding his concerns who had been dismissive.
6. It was unsatisfactory that he was “paying rent” when the property was in such poor condition.
7. The situation was impacting on his mental and physical health. He confirmed that this was true of his son also.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response, which opened by apologising for the “issues [he had] been experiencing regarding poor service from the customer service centre and the repairs team”. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the missed appointment. It confirmed that if the resident provided the job number and date of the appointment it would see whether compensation was due.
2. An appointment was scheduled for 7 September 2021 to measure up for a new front door and frame. It confirmed that the lead time for new doors was up to 10 weeks, but due to the pandemic this time could be extended.
3. An inspection was scheduled for 13 September 2021. It confirmed that the surveyor would assess “the damp and wall crack issues”. It confirmed that following the appointment recommendations for remedial works would be made to resolve the issues.
4. It had included details of its insurance team should the resident wish to make a claim for any loss or damage to personal items.
5. It had been unable to locate the call with the customer service advisor on 25 August 2021. It confirmed that it was therefore unable to respond to the resident’s concerns that the advisor was dismissive.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate the complaint if he was not happy with its response.
On 25 October 2021 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident:
1. Reiterated that the property was “in a state of total disrepair” including defective plastering, cracked ceilings and faulty front door. He also added that:
  1. Pipework in the property was faulty as it was “backing up stagnant rotten water” when the washing machine was used. He confirmed that the sink also took an “extremely long time to drain”.
  2. There were “dips in the floor” in parts of the property.
2. Said that despite the inspection identifying that the property was “not habitable” no works had been scheduled. He confirmed that the landlord had committed to providing a plan within two weeks.
3. Said that during a recent conversation with a customer service advisor he had learnt that there was an on-going problem with the pipework in the property “dating back as far as January” and before he became the tenant.
4. Reiterated that the condition of the property was significantly impacting on his mental health.
5. Reiterated that it was unfair that he was paying rent when the property was “[un]inhabitable in all aspects”.
On 30 November 2021 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It inspected the property on 13 September 2021. It confirmed that the following works were identified “plastering and redecoration of the bedrooms, living room and landing; damaged flooring requiring renewal in the hallway and bedroom”. It confirmed that following the inspection the works “were not appointed to operatives in good time” which resulted in a delay in arranging appointments. It confirmed that a plasterer attended on 10 November 2021 to scope the extent of the works with an appointment scheduled for 14 January 2022 to complete the repairs.
2. On 9 November 2021 a repair appointment was attended to remedy faulty pipework and drainage issues. It confirmed that the attending operative could not clear the blockage during the appointment and therefore a further appointment had been booked with a “multiskilled operative” on 3 December 2021.
3. It was aware that prior to the inspection on 13 September 2021 it had undertaken another inspection on 18 August 2021. It confirmed that “no follow on action was taken afterwards”.
4. It was sorry for the delays the resident had experienced and the inconvenience this would have caused, including that he was not kept informed of the delays. It confirmed that some of the delays were due to a backlog of works following the Covid-19 lockdown and “a higher than normal rate of absences”.
5. Unfortunately, it was unable to bring forward the appointments scheduled for 3 December 2021 and 14 January 2022. It confirmed that this was because all appointments scheduled for the rest of the year were “critical and high priority jobs”.
6. It would like to award the resident £200 compensation comprising:
  1. £70 for time and trouble;
  2. £130 for the delay in carrying out works since 18 August 2021 calculated as follows – “one off £10, £2 per day for three weeks, £7.50 per day for remainder 12 weeks”.
7. Its surveyor had confirmed that a decant was not necessary as the remediation work to be completed was “considered to be mainly corrective works” and could be done with the resident in occupation.
8. It would arrange for the surveyor to contact the resident as he had indicated that he was waiting for a call from them.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer the complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.
On 28 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to provide an update on the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The surveyor who inspected the property in September 2021 had not been in touch.
2. He contacted the landlord on 11 January 2022 for an itinerary of works to be completed on 14 January 2022 however he had been met with “the usual wall of silence and no reply”.
3. Contractors did not turn up on 14 January 2022.
4. On 17 January 2022 during a call with a customer service advisor he was told that contractors had attended the property on 14 January 2022 however could not gain access to the property. He confirmed that the advisor stated that the contractor left a no access card following attempts to contact him by phone. He noted that the advisor reported that the contractor spoke with a lady called “Nadine”. He confirmed that a no access card was not left at the property and he was not aware of a lady called Nadine.
5. He had referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence. The landlord set out that it was sorry that the “issues remain unresolved” following its stage two response. The landlord confirmed that as the complaint was with the Ombudsman it would not provide a further response. The landlord advised that it would however pass the resident’s concerns regarding missed repair appointments to its repairs team.
On 30 March 2023 the resident provided an update to the Ombudsman on the repairs service provided by the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. While the repairs subject of the complaint were completed they “immediately” began to “show signs of wear”. He noted one example where the “bad walls and ceiling were all bonded over” and “cracks [were] already starting to appear”.
2. The property was experiencing leaks from the roof. He noted that this was “a long term historic issue” which the landlord had not yet resolved despite committing to do so.
3. The landlord had not addressed rats and squirrels running across the property’s roof.
4. Despite reporting a fault to the radiator in the dining room the landlord had not provided a remedy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property, including drains. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of structural damage and faulty drainage and to put right any issues identified which were its responsibility.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its response to the resident’s repair requests since the start of his tenancy. The records show that, prior to the resident’s complaint in August 2021 and from May 2021, the resident raised the following repairs – faulty lock to front door, front door is in bad condition and has a hole, structural damage to back wall in bedroom which moves and cistern running continuously in bowl. Each repair has a “work completed date” recorded against it, however no further details are given. The lack of detail has meant that the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it took to resolve the reported issues and whether the issues were indeed resolved. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should have system in place to maintain accurate records, so that it can satisfy itself and the tenant (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations.
The front door – In response to the resident’s stage one complaint the landlord arranged an appointment to review the front door on 7 September 2021. This was appropriate to determine if the door was faulty or not. The evidence shows that following the appointment it was identified that the front door did require replacement and an order for a new one was raised. The outcome of the appointment therefore supports that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial reports of problems with the front door in May and June 2021 as the issues were still outstanding in September 2021. This is unsatisfactory as when a landlord is put on notice of a repair issue it should take action to resolve the problem within a reasonable period of time.
The evidence shows that the new front door was installed on 23 March 2022. This is a period of six months from the inspection in September 2021. While the Ombudsman accepts that a new door may take some time to manufacture and the landlord delayed installation due to finding asbestos in the door frame, the Ombudsman considers the overall timeframe to be significantly protracted. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in inconvenience and distress to the resident.
Structure of property – In response to the resident’s stage one complaint the landlord arranged an appointment to inspect the property on 13 September 2021. This was appropriate in order to determine what works were required, if any. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the report following the inspection, the landlord has confirmed that works were identified which included plastering, redecoration and renewal of flooring. The outcome of the appointments therefore supports that the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests between May and August 2021 had not been satisfactory as the issues were still outstanding in September 2021. This is unsatisfactory for the reasons previously given.
The landlord has confirmed that the repairs to complete plastering, redecoration and renewal of flooring were completed in June 2022. This is a period of nine months. This is unsatisfactory and will have again resulted in inconvenience and distress to the resident. While the landlord has not provided evidence of completion of the works, the Ombudsman notes that the resident has confirmed to this Service that the works were completed in 2022.
Faulty pipes – In response to the resident’s stage two complaint, where he raised concerns regarding faulty pipework, the landlord arranged a repair appointment for 9 November 2021. This was appropriate. The landlord confirmed within its stage two response that as the issue could not be resolved during the appointment a specialist contractor was instructed to attend on 3 December 2021. The landlord’s records confirm that a repair was completed during the appointment on 3 December 2021. The Ombudsman accepts some repairs will require the attention of a specialist which may only be identified during a first attendance. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the timeliness of the response as the landlord’s first attendance was within 28 days of it first being made aware of the issue and the specialist appointment was within 28 days of the first attendance. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy which sets out that non-urgent repairs will be completed within 28 days. (The Ombudsman has not identified any earlier repair requests within the records in relation to faulty pipework prior to the resident’s stage two complaint).
Redress – In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the repairs service it had provided to the resident had not always been satisfactory. Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider whether it has made an offer of redress to put things right. In this case the landlord apologised and awarded £200 compensation.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it acknowledged that it accepted the fault and the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may offer compensation where a tenant has been adversely affected by it delaying in taking action. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord engaged the policy. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the level of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case, including the length of time the issues were outstanding and therefore the impact on the resident including uncertainty, distress and missed opportunity to put things right at an earlier time. Further the Ombudsman considers additional compensation must be considered to take into account the additional delays the resident experienced following the end of the complaint procedure despite the landlord’s pledge in its final response to put things right by January 2022.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in a timely manner the Ombudsman has identified a shortcoming in terms of the content of the landlord’s stage one response.
As part of his stage one complaint the resident raised concerns regarding the conduct of a customer service advisor, specifically that they had been dismissive when reporting his concerns regarding the condition of the property. In response the landlord said that it was unable to comment on this part of the complaint as it had been unable to locate the call with the operative. While the landlord was unable to review the call with the operative and therefore obtain a first hand account it would have been appropriate and best practice for the landlord to have acknowledged the way the resident perceived and experienced the call. It would also have been beneficial in helping to restore the landlord and tenant relationship. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord could also have considered making enquiries with the operative subject of the complaint as part of its investigation, which it does not appear to have done.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was also unsatisfactory that the landlord declined to reply to the comments the resident made on 28 January 2022 in response to its stage two response. This is because the issues the resident raised were about the landlord’s actions to put things right, as it had committed to do within its final response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property

While the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of faulty pipes was appropriate, the evidence shows that the repairs service it provided in relation to the front door and structure of the property was unsatisfactory. The evidence shows that the landlord did not provide a proactive or timely service in relation to these issues as each remedy was significantly delayed which will have caused distress, inconvenience and uncertainly to the resident over an unnecessarily protracted time.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s perceived experience of the call with the operative in August 2021. This would have been best practice in addition to helping restore the landlord and tenant relationship.
It was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s comments following its stage two response as he was raising concerns regarding the commitments it had made to put things right.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the repairs service it provided.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £900 compensation, within four weeks of the date of this determination, comprising the £200 it awarded itself in addition to a further £700 comprising:
1. £600 for the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty he would have experienced as a result of the repairs service provided.
2. £100 for complaint handling.
The landlord should arrange an appointment with the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, in order to inspect the property following the repair concerns he raised to the Ombudsman in March 2023. Following the inspection the landlord should report back to the resident within two weeks detailing the outcome and a plan for any further repairs identified.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of recommendations in other investigations to the landlord about its record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around this aspect of service in this report, but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account.