Haringey London Borough Council (202215853)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215853

Haringey London Borough Council

31 July 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the flooring following a central heating upgrade.
2. The stairlift replacement.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.
The resident has also complained that the landlord has not offered compensation for negligence and damages.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s daughter has advised that she is seeking compensation for the landlord’s negligence on behalf of the resident as he has been without a stairlift for two years. She is claiming loss and damage caused to the resident’s property, following the installation of the new heating system.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The complaints raised by the resident’s daughter require a decision to be made on a breach of duty or care, meeting a threshold of negligence, and for a decision to be made in relation to liability for damages. These matters are appropriately decided by a court, rather than this Service. For these reasons, the complaint about compensation for negligence and damages is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, in considering the residents’ complaints about the landlord’s handling of repairs to flooring and the stairlift replacement, consideration has been given to the adverse effect, including distress and inconvenience, time and delay, caused to the residents during this time.

Background

The residents, ‘Mr T’ and ‘Mrs T’, are tenants of the landlord, a local authority. They live in a two-bedroom house, with a stairlift. The property has two bedrooms upstairs, one is used by Mrs T.
Mr T suffered a dense stroke which affected one side of his body, severely impacting his mobility. He also has rectal cancer.
Mr T sleeps in the lounge, as he is unable to access the first floor of the property. Mr T’s Occupational Therapist confirmed in September 2021 that the stairlift in place at the time was unrepairable, and the unit was removed in December 2021. It is unclear exactly how long the stairlift has been unusable for, however, the OT reported in September 2021 that it had not worked for over a year.
The property has an upstairs bathroom, with a bath and toilet. Downstairs, a small toilet has been converted to a wet room.
Mrs T has a diagnosed lung condition and mobility issues. She underwent key-hole surgery on her knee three years ago and is awaiting a knee replacement.
The residents are represented by their daughter in their complaint, who for the purpose of the report will be referred to as “Ms A”. The residents will be referred to as “Mr T” and “Mrs T” or as the “residents.”
The residents’ central heating was upgraded in April 2020 by the landlord’s heating contractors, who will be referred to as the “contractor” in this report.
The evidence confirms that the heating upgrade was complex. It involved cutting of the resident’s flooring, to lay new pipework, which the landlord confirms was not normal procedure.
The landlord and Ms A have confirmed that two previous complaints were made regarding the remedial works following the heating upgrade. Ms A has complained about the standard of repairs to the wooden flooring in Mrs T’s bedroom, and the damage caused to the landing carpet. She has also complained that the landlord delayed in facilitating the replacement of the stairlift, to enable Mr T to have full access of the property.
The evidence indicates that Ms A made previous complaints regarding the matter in November 2020, and April 2021. Following the landlord’s response in April 2021, the residents are noted to have contacted their local councillor, for help in resolving the matter. This Service has not been provided with evidence of the previous complaint but has considered the overall time taken to resolve issues, as part of this investigation.

Summary of events

In April 2021, the contractor’s gas installation manager attended the property. This followed Ms A’s report of damage caused during the installation of the central heating system. Following the visit, Ms A was asked to obtain a minimum of two quotes to replace/repair flooring in the areas “that needed resolving.” The evidence does not confirm which areas of the property the repair was required within.
On 8 May 2021, Ms A requested that the carpet on the landing and stairs was replaced, after it had been damaged by the contractors.
The evidence is unclear on how the matter proceeded. However, on 12 July 2021, Ms A emailed the contractors to confirm:
1. An operative arrived at 10am that day to repair floorboards in Mrs T’s bedroom. At 1.20pm work had not started.
2. She had to confirm with managers what carpet/flooring was being replaced which had caused “unnecessary stress again.” She asked the contractor to clarify this and put it in writing to save more stress in the future.
3. The landlord had confirmed that the carpet in Mr T’s bedroom, the landing and stairs would be replaced, as it was “all one piece”.
4. The floorboards in Mrs T’s bedroom had been destroyed, “looked horrible”, and “nothing could fix it”. It could not be replaced with carpets due to Mrs T’s lung condition and her breathing difficulties.
5. It had been ongoing for a long time, which had caused the residents stress.
6. She was waiting for the stairlift to be fixed and was told that carpet could not be laid until the stairlift was sorted. Once the stairlift was sorted, she would send quotes for carpets.
The contractor confirmed the same day that the operative was there to complete works agreed with the residents in April 2021 (the details of which have not been provided to this Service). It said it was sorry that Ms A was unhappy with the standard of works, and confirmed that she needed to obtain quotes to replace the carpet “in one area only” as it had not agreed to replace the stair carpet. However, it would confirm with the landlord if that decision had changed.
Ms A provided photographs of the repairs to the residents’ property on 15 July 2021. She noted the repairs were incomplete, there were gaps directly on top of the stairs, which were “hazardous” and if “trod on you will fall.” She reported that the residents could “barely move” in the bathroom, as it was difficult to use because it was piled with items, so the bedroom flooring repairs could be completed.
The contractor emailed Ms A on 16 July 2021, advising that it would return to the property to rectify any gaps in the flooring. It said it would fill, sand, and varnish the new floorboards in Mrs T’s bedroom to assist with the appearance. It confirmed that the room needed to be empty, and the works would take two days to complete. It is understood that the repairs were partially completed at some point between July 2021 and December 2021, but the evidence does not confirm when exactly this was.
An OT emailed the landlord on 16 September 2021, following a visit the previous day. It confirmed:
1. A request would be made to the adaptations team for a new stairlift, as the current stairlift could not be repaired, and had been unusable for over a year.
2. Mr T was sleeping on the ground floor of the property, with access to a small toilet space which had been converted to a wet room. The toilet was constantly blocking, and the wet room did not drain properly. The resident had reported it and was told by a surveyor that the floor needed to come out and the drains rearranged.
3. Mr T was desperate to have the WC fixed.
4. There were “live” floorboards at the top of the stairs which were a hazard.
5. The landlord was asked to look at the matters as a priority.
In a response on 29 September 2021, the landlord requested clarification from the OT as to who conducted the survey. It had one record of a site visit in May 2021, with no follow-on notes. It asked what was meant by “live” floorboards. The OT confirmed that the floorboards were loose, and not affixed to the joists.
On 5 October 2021, an appointment was made for 11 October 2021 to refix the loose floorboards. Also on 5 October, the landlord “urgently chased” the surveying team in relation to its visit to the property in May 2021.
The evidence confirms that the landlord was aware that the OT team closed Mr T’s case at the end of October 2021, after it had been passed to the adaptations team to progress the stairlift and bathroom adaptations. A works order was raised on 10 November 2021, to arrange for the stairlift to be removed. The landlord noted this job as completed on 2 December 2021.
Ms A sent an email of complaint to the landlord on 22 December 2021, stating that:
1. She was unhappy with works that had been carried out at the property.
2. She felt the contractor had “destroyed” the residents’ home and she requested compensation for the damage, lies and stress that it had caused for nearly two years. She included photos of the “unsatisfactory” flooring repairs.
3. She would await a response as to how the landlord would help deal with the issues.
Ms A emailed the contractor on 12 January 2022, for an update regarding “awful work” done on the floorboards. The contractor responded the following day and said that it understood the room was not fully clear, and that was why the varnishing was not completed. It said it would confirm how it could move forward to resolve the matter.
In a response the next day, Ms A confirmed that it was a “lie” that the room was not cleared. She stated:
1. She was “disgusted” that the contractor had advised the room was not fully cleared. Herself and Mrs T had moved all the furniture.
2. An email (which she attached) confirmed that the bedroom would be varnished and stained and would take two days. However, the operative only attended for one day as he did not do “a full job, just various boards,” and his filling of gaps was “awful.”
3. The contractor was told only to do the two new floorboards, and then started working on the corridor and second bedroom which he should not have been doing.
4. Despite assurances that it would be fixed, they were “in tears” and angry as the residents’ home was “destroyed” and a simple job had “taken over a year.” She was tired, and so were the residents.
A stage one complaint response was issued on 14 January 2022. Within this, the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that Ms A and the residents were unhappy with the service received, and that some of the works remained outstanding or were completed to a poor standard by its contractors.
2. It had escalated concerns to the gas compliance manager and asked its team to oversee and post inspect future works carried out in the property.
3. It would communicate any plans with Ms A, once it had received a response from its contractors.
4. Once a plan was in place, it would review the residents’ request for compensation.
5. It was sorry that it had failed to provide a good service, but it would use the opportunity to learn and improve.
On 11 February 2022, Ms A emailed the landlord as she had “heard from no-one” regarding damage caused to the residents’ home over the past year. She confirmed that she had emailed but had not received a response.
In a response the same day, the contractor apologised for the delay. It said its management team had agreed to either complete the works to the bedroom, or Ms A could supply quotes to have the work done by someone else. Ms A confirmed that she was happy for the contractor to complete the flooring repairs in the bedroom.
The contractor emailed Ms A on 28 February 2022 and provided two dates in March to undertake sanding and staining of the floorboards, to bring them back to the same colour as the rest. Ms A agreed for the works to be undertaken in March 2022.
On 7 June 2022, Ms A emailed the landlord expressing her “disgust” regarding the ongoing complaint. She confirmed that she was fed up with how long things were taking, and questioned how the landlord “could allow it to happen to members of the community that it should be looking after.”
The OT emailed the landlord on 29 June 2022, confirming that Mr T had been scheduled to have bathroom and stairlift adaptations in March 2022. Ms A had reported outstanding repairs to the carpet and flooring that needed to be undertaken before the adaptations could be done. The landlord was asked to contact Ms A in relation to the repairs and once they had been completed, it would plan to progress the adaptations. The OT noted that due to the time taken for ongoing repairs, it may need to retender the adaptations to another contractor.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 5 July 2022 and confirmed that all remedial works had been carried out to the residents’ satisfaction. It confirmed in an internal email on 7 July 2022 that it had agreed with Ms A that it would cover the costs to replace the carpet on the stairs on receipt of quotes.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 12 July 2022, which confirmed:
1. It had responded to two previous complaints relating to the works in November 2020, and April 2021, and a councillor made follow up enquires on Ms A’s behalf.
2. It acknowledged that the heating upgrade was complex and caused “great inconvenience” to the residents, but it was planned with them in advance.
3. The flooring in the bedroom was replaced and stained to match, however the residents were unhappy with the quality of works. The contractor offered to reimburse the costs of having the flooring replaced and requested that quotes were obtained. As quotes were not submitted, the contractor returned later to replace the flooring themselves.
4. The landlord attended on 5 July 2022, to check that the residents were satisfied with the replacement flooring and other remedial works.
5. It was not initially agreed that the stair carpet would be replaced. As such, it did not accept that it, or its contractors caused the delay in replacing the stairlift.
6. However, due to the length of time the resident had been waiting for remedial works, it would replace the stair carpet (agreed by senior management). This was offered in lieu of a monetary award of compensation, to provide a resolution to the complaint.
7. Ms A was advised to contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 18 October 2022, Ms A emailed the Ombudsman to confirm that the landlord had not completed works to the residents’ property, and as a result Mr T had no stairlift to access his bedroom. She stated that the situation had been ongoing for two years and they had been “fed lies and broken promises”. Ms A added that the two named officers dealing with the complaint had “disappeared.” She said that the residents had suffered an “unbelievable” amount of stress and requested compensation for damage, loss, and negligence.
The landlord confirmed in correspondence with the Ombudsman that a senior member of staff had contacted Ms A to apologise for the delay and would ensure adaptations were progressed. It confirmed that the provision of the shower/wet room should have been completed, despite the issues with the stairlift, but it had not discussed this option with the residents. It confirmed that it would have been possible to repair the floorboards at the same time as installing a stairlift, but again this was not explored with the residents.

Policies and procedures and standards

Discretionary compensation policy

The policy states that if a resident loses the use of an essential room for more than one week a decant and/or home loss disturbance scheme should be considered. The suggested level of award is £10 plus 80% (essential rooms are kitchen, bathroom, toilet, or bed/living room) of the weekly rent, until the situation is resolved.
Time and trouble payments are considered at £5-£10 per week.
Exceptional circumstances are a discretionary sum to reflect circumstances, and level of awards are considered at £10-£40 per week of failure.

Vulnerable residents’ policy

Its aim is to provide “a high-quality housing service that meets the needs of vulnerable residents.” To “provide safe and decent homes and neighbourhoods that help vulnerable residents to live independent lives.”
It confirms that vulnerable adults include people with physical disabilities and medical vulnerabilities, and people who rely on others for care and support.

Adaptation maintenance policy

The landlord will ensure that inspection and breakdown reports are correct and stored appropriately.
The landlord’s contractor is the first respondent when an adaptation has been reported faulty. In most cases, the contractor will return the unit to normal operation. If the unit cannot be returned to use, the contractor will disable the equipment and advise on next steps. Where defects have been identified, the contractor will assess the possible risk of each item and prioritise, as necessary.
Its procedure minimises and responds promptly to the breakdown and repair of its adaptations.

Assessment and findings

It is not disputed that the landlord needed to carry out a heating upgrade in the property. It confirmed that the works were complex, and it was not normal procedure for its contractors to have to cut the flooring. However, following the works, Ms A advised the landlord and its contractors of the damage caused to the flooring in Mrs T’s bedroom and on the landing, which she evidenced with photographs. She reported “hazardous” floorboards and gaps, directly at the top of the stairs in July 2021, which was corroborated by the OT during his visit in September 2021. The landlord’s records show that a job to repair the floorboards was not raised until 5 October 2021, and completed on 11 October 2021.
It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to act upon Ms A’s report, and was prompted again two months later, to repair the floorboards by the OT. Despite the safety concerns, which were reiterated following the OT inspection in September 2021, the landlord did not complete the repairs until 11 October 2021, three months after being reported. This was an unreasonable delay, and a departure from the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It was a failing that the landlord did not prioritise the repair given the vulnerabilities in the household. It also failed to offer an explanation as to why it had not met its timescales.
Following the repairs to re-fix the floorboards in October 2021, and remedial works to fill, sand and varnish Mrs T’s bedroom, Ms A remained dissatisfied with the standard of workmanship and the incomplete works. She sent emails to the landlord and its contractor in December 2021 and January 2022. It is evident that she spent a significant amount of time and trouble following-up the repairs.
The landlord has not shown that it managed the repairs appropriately, or that it carried out a post-inspection of the repairs, until much later, followings Ms A’s dissatisfaction. This would have been appropriate action to take, to satisfy itself that the works were of a reasonable standard. The lack of inspection reports or works schedules has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation in determining whether the landlord completed all repairs that it had agreed to, and if they were carried out to a reasonable standard. However, it is clear from the evidence that Ms A remains unhappy with the standard of repairs.
It was only Ms A’s chaser emails that prompted the contractor to make enquiries regarding the incomplete repairs. This indicates that the landlord and its contractor did not have oversight in managing the repairs and is an indication of poor record keeping.
When responding to Ms A, the contractor inferred that as the bedroom was not fully cleared, the works had only partially been completed. Ms A has refuted this. The Ombudsman is unable to confirm one way or another, however, the response was inappropriate as it lacked empathy for the resident’s situation and failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience which had been caused. There was also a clear failure to consider the vulnerabilities in the household, which would have made moving furniture challenging. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether any assistance was needed in moving items, prior to the contractor’s attendance.
Despite stating that it had learned lessons from the complaint, the landlord offered no detail on how it proposed to reduce the risk of similar failings in the future. While it advised Ms A that it would work with its contractor and oversee the repairs, it has failed to demonstrate any specific actions taken to improve the workmanship of its contractors, or that it learned lessons from its own failure to oversee the works, and ensure repairs are progressed satisfactorily. The landlord failed to act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Despite Resolution Principle to ‘learn from outcomes.’
It is evident that Ms A was confused as to whether the landlord and contractor had agreed to replace the carpet on the stairs, as she had requested, following the damage caused to the carpet on the landing. In July 2021, she requested confirmation as to what it had agreed to replace in writing, to save further “stress.” The landlord has not evidenced that it did this. A year later, in July 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would replace the stair carpet, due to the delays in completing the flooring repairs. This was offered in lieu of compensation.
Ms A states that she is unhappy with the redress offered by the landlord, and despite confirming that it would replace the carpet on the stairs, landing and in one of the bedrooms, these works remain outstanding. The landlord and its contractors asked Ms A to provide quotes to replace the flooring, which was an appropriate request. However, Ms A has said that she provided quotes on more than one occasion, but that the landlord has not responded. This is a further failing by the landlord, and a missed opportunity to put things right. Therefore, an order has been made below, on this matter.
The flooring repairs were post-inspected on 5 July 2022, 6 months after Ms T complained about the standard of work, and three months after completion of the March repair. Despite the landlord indicating that the residents were satisfied with the repairs on this date, Ms A disputes this. As such, an appropriate order has been made to address this.
The Ombudsman has considered the redress offered by the landlord in this case and considers the offer to replace the carpet to be insufficient remedy in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has considered the adverse effect caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings, including impact of poor record keeping, in the associated orders below.

Replacement of the stairlift

The earliest record provided to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord was made aware that the residents’ stairlift was unserviceable on 16 September 2021. The OT did confirm that the stairlift had been out of operation for over a year. It is unclear if the landlord was aware of this, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised whether it was aware of how long the stairlift had been out of service for, when responding to the complaint.
In accordance with its adaptations policy, the landlord’s contractor is expected to respond to the report of a faulty adaptation and advise the resident on next steps if the unit cannot be repaired. Any inspection reports should be correct and stored appropriately. This service has not seen evidence of any inspection reports to be able to conclude when the unit was considered “unserviceable” to determine the length of time Mr T has been unable to access the first floor of the property. This is poor record keeping and means that it is not able to adequately show what steps it took to deal with the issue, or that it responded appropriately in “identifying the risk” and “prioritising” a new installation appropriately.
The landlord was made aware at the end of October 2021, that the OT had closed the case after passing it onto the adaptations team to progress the replacement stairlift and bathroom adaptations. Although the evidence indicates that the flooring repairs may have delayed progress, the landlord has since confirmed that it would have been possible to repair the floorboards at the same time as installing a stairlift, but this was not explored with the residents. Overall, the evidence does not show any justifiable reason for the significant adaptation delays.
Following the removal of the stairlift in December 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have prioritised the installation of the new stairlift, to ensure that the residents were not restricted in the use or enjoyment of their property. The landlord has not shown what, if any, steps it took in liaising with its adaptations team throughout this three-month period. The Ombudsman finds that the lack of proactivity on the landlord’s part significantly delayed the progress in installing a new stairlift.
Failing to demonstrate a proactive, collaborative approach with the adaptations team was a significant failing, given the vulnerabilities of the residents, and specifically their mobility issues. The landlord’s adaptations policy confirms that it will provide safe and decent homes to “allow residents to live independently.” Mr T’s use of the property, specifically, was severely restricted, with no indication that the landlord had expedited the replacement of the stairlift, to prevent further distress and inconvenience.
In June 2022. The OT confirmed that the resident was due to have adaptations installed in March 2022, but this was delayed due to ongoing flooring repairs. There is no evidence that following this, the landlord prioritised the work or collaborated with the adaptations team to progress installation of the stairlift. By this point, the residents had been without a stairlift for at least nine months. This was a significant failing, causing the residents considerable distress and inconvenience.
When making follow up enquiries in June 2022, the OT asked the landlord to liaise with Ms A to provide a completion date for the repairs, for the adaptations to be re-scheduled. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the residents or Ms A with repair dates, or an explanation as to how it would achieve the repairs and the adaptations. It is noted that at this point, the OT confirmed that due to the delays, it was likely that the adaptations would need to be retendered, which could cause further delays.
The landlord said in its final response that it was not responsible for any of the delays in the installation of the adaptations. However, in correspondence with this service, after completing the complaints process, it acknowledged that it had failed to proceed with the adaptations as it should have, given that it was possible for the works to progress alongside the flooring repairs, and apologised for this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this sooner and to try to put things right. That it did not, was a missed opportunity to resolve the ongoing situation and restore the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord’s vulnerability policy describes its purpose as enabling residents to live “independently”. This is particularly relevant in this case, as the independence of the residents was significantly hampered due to being unable to safely access both floors of their property. The landlord’s response was heavy-handed and inappropriate, and failed to consider the detrimental impact the delays had on its residents.
Nothing in the evidence provided gives a reasonable explanation for the significant delays by the landlord. The offer to replace the stair carpet does not reflect the scale, or the impact of the landlord’s failings, meaning the resident’s complaint was left unremedied. It was inappropriate that when considering how to put things right in this case, the landlord failed to give appropriate regard to its compensation policy. The policy states that in “exceptional circumstances” a sum of between £10-£40 per week may be offered. The circumstances of this case are exceptional, given that Mr T has been severely restricted in the use of his property, and continues to be unable to access the first floor.
The landlord’s compensation policy further confirms that if a resident “loses the use of an essential room (bathroom) for more than one week, a decant and/or home loss disturbance scheme should be considered.” There is no evidence that, although the landlord was aware that Mr T could not access the top floor of the property and adaptations were delayed, it considered whether a move from the property was possible, including decant.
The landlord confirmed to this service in July 2023, that Mr T continues to sleep downstairs in the property. While there is a small wet room on the ground floor of the property, the landlord has confirmed that “it is too small for him to use.” It is therefore understood that, while Mr T has not been able to access the first floor of the property, he has not had access to any designated washing facilities.
When this service recently asked the landlord for confirmation of whether a new stairlift had yet been installed, the landlord responded by stating “no.” It is understood, therefore, that Mr T continues to be unable to access designated facilities. The landlord has not provided this service with any reasons for the ongoing delay, or any attempts to expedite the stairlift installation. It is of significant concern that the landlord shows no urgency to resolve the matter, which has caused and continues to cause significant detriment to Mr T. As a result of the inaction by the landlord, the residents have been caused significant distress and inconvenience.
It was unreasonable that Ms A and the OT had to raise the matter of adaptations on several occasions over a prolonged period, that there were excessive delays and a failure to appropriately expedite adaptations, and that the landlord failed to give appropriate regard to the wellbeing of the residents. Mr T has been without access to the upstairs of the property for approximately 22 months (at the time of this report). The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s handling of the matter to constitute severe maladministration.
In considering a proportionate sum of compensation, the Ombudsman has given regard to the length of time that the resident has had limited access to the property. The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s loss of amenity and the level of rent payable throughout. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was paying £133.36 in rent per week at the time of raising his complaint.
Taking this into account, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 50% of the rent for a period of 98 weeks. The total amount of compensation ordered for loss of amenity is £6,534.64.
The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings, including impact of poor record keeping, in the associated orders below.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted complaints to the landlord and its contractor. The landlord is responsible for dealing with complaints about the “standard of service, by those acting on its behalf,” which in this case was its contractors. As such, the landlord was required to liaise with its contractors, and investigate the complaint thoroughly, to provide a suitable response. The evidence does not confirm that the landlord took ownership of the complaint, which resulted in Ms A spending a significant amount of time going between both parties, to try and resolve the matter.
As detailed in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord is expected to respond to every aspect of the complaint. However, the landlord failed to apply this or its complaint procedure as it failed to respond to the concerns raised regarding the stair lift, and missed the opportunity to resolve the matter, as “early as possible.” This failing was profound given the ongoing situation for the residents.
In its stage one response, the landlord confirmed that lessons had been learned from the complaint, but it did not explain how it would reduce the risk of further failings in the future. The landlord provided general comments regarding lessons learned after the completion of its internal complaints process stating that it would “look at ways to improve the way it works with other teams going forward.” While it recognised that it had failed in its oversight, it again did not confirm what action it would take to prevent similar failings.
The landlord acknowledged the “great inconvenience” that the heating upgrade and subsequent repair works had caused in its stage two response. This was appropriate. However, the landlord did not consider the significant and serious long-term effect on the residents, including physical or emotional impact.
The landlord failed to acknowledge failings and offer redress for the delay in installing the stairlift during the complaints process. It also failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the considerable delays and was unempathetic to the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord has since confirmed to this service that it should have progressed with the adaptations in the property, and it would ensure that these are progressed. While it offered an apology for this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed its previous remedy, to determine whether it was still proportionate to the detriment caused to the residents. That it did not, was inappropriate and failed to acknowledge the impact its failings had on the residents, for a significant period.
The landlord has also failed to provide evidence that it has followed through on its assurances. Despite suggesting that it had learned lessons, and would progress the adaptations, this service has seen no evidence to confirm of this. Ms A has confirmed that the adaptations and repairs remain outstanding. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has learned lessons to remedy continued failings in its management and handling of the matter, and does not appear to have grasped the seriousness of these ongoing failings.
The landlord’s overall responses to the complaint demonstrate a lack of resident focus, which appears to have been at least partially caused by a lack of collaborative approach between internal teams and contractors. The complaint process was not used as an effective tool to resolve the complaints, and led to considerable time and trouble for the residents, via Ms A, in pursuing the complaints. The failings, cumulatively, amount to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The repairs to the flooring following the heating upgrade.
2. Record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The stairlift replacement.
1. Complaint handling

Reasons

The landlord failed to adhere to its repairs policy or meet its repair obligations in a reasonable period. The landlord lacked oversight and appropriate management of the repairs, to ensure that the repairs were completed to a satisfactory standard, within a reasonable period.
The landlord did not adequately address all of Ms A’s concerns in its stage one response. Despite confirming that it would learn lessons, it failed to demonstrate how it had done so. Its responses lacked empathy and failed to appropriately acknowledge the impact that the issues were having on the residents.
The landlord’s record keeping failures exacerbated the failings in this case. Its lack of collaborative approach with contractors and internal teams prevented the landlord from progressing the matter appropriately. It failed to evidence what repairs were agreed in April 2021; failed to provide records of adaptation inspection reports; and failed to keep a record of surveyor reports in May 2021.
The landlord failed to facilitate replacement of the stairlift in good time, despite being aware of the vulnerabilities in the household. The landlord’s profound failings have meant that Mr T has been unable to access his bedroom, or the entirety of the first floor of the property, for an unreasonable and significant time. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge the significant time and trouble spent, and distress caused to the residents while they pursued the matter, via Ms A, for a prolonged period.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise to the residents in person (or in an alternative format, such as email or letter if preferred by the residents) for the failings identified in this report.
2. Attend the property at a time convenient to the residents, and inspect the flooring where repairs have been reported by Ms A. A report of its findings should be shared with the resident and this service within one week of the inspection. Any repairs identified should be completed within two weeks of the inspection.
3. Re-offer to pay for replacement carpets to one of the bedrooms, the landing and the stairs. If the offer is accepted by the residents, payment should be made within three weeks of the provision of quotes or receipts.
4. Take a collaborative approach between internal teams to provide the resident with a schedule for installation of the stairlift.
5. Pay the resident compensation £8,954.64 made up of:
  1. £670 for the delay in repairs to the flooring. This is worked out at £10 per week for 67 weeks.
  2. £6534.64 for the failings associated with the installation of the stairlift, which resulted in the loss of Mr T’s use of the first floor. This is worked out at 50% of the rent, over 98 weeks.
  3. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience, caused to the residents by the landlord’s handling of the stairlift replacement.
  4. £750 for the failings identified in the handling of the complaint.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to deliver training to all relevant staff in:
1. Addressing all aspects of a complaint, in line with its procedure and the Complaint Handling Code.
2. Investigating and responding to complaints concerning vulnerable households.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its approach to:
1. The maintenance and access of repair records (including internal and contractor actions) by relevant staff. The outcome of this review, including actions and dates, should be provided to this service, also within twelve weeks.
2. Timely facilitation of adaptations, ensuring that adaptations are serviced in line with its obligations, inspection reports are correct and stored appropriately and its procedures are sufficient in identifying risks to vulnerable households. The outcome of this review, including actions and dates, should be provided to this service, also within twelve weeks.
If action has already been taken since this complaint which addresses orders made at paragraphs 91 and 92 above (for example, by the landlord following recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Special Report on London Borough of Haringey), this should be communicated to this service, also within twelve weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider offering the residents further compensation once the stairlift has been installed, considering whether any further delays following this report have been avoidable. The outcome of this consideration should be provided to this service.