Haringey London Borough Council (202211723)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211723

Haringey Council

17 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repair jobs, specifically concerning appointments and the level of service provided.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, raised two complaints with the landlord that have completed its internal complaints procedure (ICP). This Service has agreed to investigate both of them in this report due to the similar nature and timeframes of the complaints.
3. The resident’s first formal complaint was raised on 25 April 2022. She explained that a bathroom repair appointment had been scheduled for 11 April 2022, then cancelled, and rescheduled for 28 April. This new date was inconvenient for her, and she called to rearrange it on two separate occasions. She said that on both occasions, she was told she would be called back to book a new appointment, but this was not done. The landlord responded by apologising for the inconvenience caused, and asked the resident to provide the phone number she had used so it could identify what had happened with her calls.
4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 12 May 2022. She explained she did not believe the inconvenience caused to her had been properly addressed. She also explained that despite her efforts to change the appointment, operatives had arrived on 28 April 2022 while she was preparing for a medical appointment. She said his had caused her stress and made her late for her appointment. She said these appointments all flowed from one scheduled for 7 March in which the operative had not attempted to contact her or gain access. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the inconvenience and delayed repairs, and to reschedule the appointment to 25 or 26 May.
5. New appointments were made in line with the resident’s request, and work was completed at the end of May 2022. However, during the work, the resident’s bathroom wall was damaged. She was given a new appointment for 1 September to remedy the damage.
6. The landlord sent its second complaint response on 20 June 2022. It explained that its evidence showed its operative had attended on 7 March, and therefore it did not agree compensation was due. Nonetheless, it acknowledged the resident’s view that he hadn’t attended. It explained why it was not able to fully verify either account due to the lack of further information or witnesses. It apologised again for the poor communication around the 28 April appointment, and asked again for the information it needed to locate the relevant phone calls. It confirmed that the primary repair work had been completed, and the follow up appointment was scheduled for 1 September. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
7. The resident asked her complaint to be escalated further. She explained that she had previously provided the phone number information the landlord had asked for, and disputed its explanation about the 7 March appointment. She also complained that the making good appointment scheduled for 1 September was too long to wait.
8. The complaint went to an independent review panel, which sent its response on 26 July 2022. The panel explained why it was not able to determine one way or the other what had happened on 7 March, and acknowledged the landlord’s poor communication around the 28 April visit. It acknowledged that the resident had provided her phone number details but further checks had not been made by the landlord, and that the 1 September appointment was too long to wait for corrective work to damage caused by the landlord. It offered compensation of £164.50. This was comprised of compensation for its poor complaint investigation, and for the time taken between April and September to complete the work.
9. The resident’s second complaint concerned a missed appointment on 30 August 2022. The wrong contractor had been booked and, therefore, it was rescheduled for 6 September 2022. However, nobody turned up for the appointment.
10. The landlord’s final complaint response on 20 October 2022 explained how the wrong operative had been sent, and that further training and extra peer support was being provided for the staff involved. It also explained that the second appointment had been rescheduled due to a system error, andacknowledged that the resident had not been informed. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused, and confirmed that the work had been completed on 19 October 2022. The landlord offeredcompensation of £102 (£20 for the two failed appointments, and £82 for the time taken to resolve the repair).
11. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She also said that she had not received the compensation offered to her in October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that for instances in which a repair was not attended, a one-off payment of £10 would be appropriate. Additionally, the landlord should pay £2 per day for up to three weeks that it remained outstanding. After that, it should be £7.50 – £10 per week until resolved.

The landlord’s handling of repair jobs, specifically concerning appointments and the level of service provided

13. The resident complained that the appointment on 7 March 2022 was not attended (or at least, that the operative did not make sufficient efforts to notify her of his attendance). The landlord explained how its evidence showed the operative attended the property. It acknowledged that it could not prove the operative had knocked, or rung the door bell, but said that in the absence of supporting evidence it could not agree that the appointment had not been attended, and would not compensate the resident. The landlord clearly explained its reasoning, and acknowledged that a definitive finding could not be made. This investigation has not seen any information from the resident or landlord that indicates the landlord’s conclusions on this point were unreasonable.
14. Not included in the review panel’s letter to the resident were the recommendations it made to the landlord in relation to the disputed 7 March appointment. These included practical options allowing contractors to be able to show evidence of their actions and activity when attending an appointment. Recommendations are made below for the landlord in relation to the panel’s suggestions. It appears this information was not provided to the resident because the panel was not certain whether or not its suggestions were already in place.
15. The landlord acknowledged that it’s communications with the resident about the 28 April 2022 appointment were poor, and resulted in the need for further appointments. It apologised, and offered compensation for the inconvenience and the delay the matter caused to completing the repair work. The amount it offered (£164.50) was proportionate to the scale and nature of its failing (poor communication resulting in a wasted visit), and in line with its compensation policy. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there is clear inconvenience caused, but no permanent or long term effect.
16. The landlord never investigated why the resident’s calls about the 28 April 2022 appointment were not returned, because it did not realise until the final, third complaint response, that she had already provided the information it asked for. In that final complaint response it acknowledged its failing, and the overall compensation it provided was due to the consequences of it not acting on the resident’s request to change the appointment.
17. The resident’s frustration when she experienced further appointment problems in August and September 2022 is entirely understandable, in the circumstances. In response, the landlord explained how the mistakes had occurred and what it was doing to improve its service. It offered compensation for the missed visits, and for the total time taken to complete the relevant repairs. The compensation was in line with its compensation policy. Apart from the obvious inconvenience and frustration, there is no indication of a clear impact from the failed appointments, other than the delay they added to resolving the repairs. The landlord’s compensation took that into account.
18. As well as compensation, the landlord explained what it would do to learn from the complaint and improve its services. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and Complaint Handling Code, in which landlords are encouraged to look beyond the outcome of the complaint, and to see how it may be able to implement changes that could prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
19. The landlord demonstrated throughout its complaint responses that it understood the inconveniences caused to the resident, and that it was aware of its own service failures and shortcomings. It offered remedies that were relevant and proportionate, and in line with its policies and procedures.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

21. At the time she came to the Ombudsman the resident explained that she had not yet received the compensation offered by the landlord in its October 2022 complaint response. The determination in this report is partly based on that compensation. If it has not yet been paid, the landlord should now do so as a priority, and within four weeks of this report at the latest.
22. Given the review panel’s recommendations, and the other ways in which the landlord said it would learn from the resident’s complaint, the landlord should consider providing her with a report of the efforts it has made, and their results in avoiding the missed and mixed up appointments she experienced in 2022.