Haringey London Borough Council (202217942)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217942

Haringey London Borough Council

31 January 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the conduct of a repair’s operative.
  2. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the property, a one-bedroom first floor flat, since 7 September 2009. The landlord had recorded that the resident was vulnerable due to physical disability and learning difficulties and that he needed assistance with reading and writing.
  2. On 23 September 2022 the resident reported that he had no water supply following work being carried out at the property. Job number 276644-1 was raised and it highlighted that the resident was disabled.
  3. The resident received a text message at 6.15pm on the same day advising him that an operative was on the way to resolve job 276644-1. A repairs call summary provided by the landlord confirmed that the job to restore the cold water commenced at 6:45pm and was completed at 6:54pm.
  4. On 26 September 2022 the resident wrote a letter to the landlord regarding job number 276644-1. He complained about the operative that had attended at 9pm on 23 September 2022. He explained that the operative had been in a good mood when he arrived but when he realised that he had to turn the water back on because another workman had failed to do so he was angry and swore. The resident said that the operative then went to the cupboard to turn the water back on and said, “what’s all this shit in here” and threw some of the resident’s belongings into the sitting room. The items hit a stereo which had sentimental value to the resident and broke a piece off it. The resident said, “I was never so scared in my life”.  He also said that his cousin, who had been in the bedroom throughout the visit, came to help him when the operative left. He explained that he now felt too scared to call the out of hours repair service.
  5. A complaint form was completed on 17 October 2022 which confirmed the reasons for the complaint as detailed in the letter and requested £5,000 compensation for emotional stress and damage to belongings.
  6. A witness statement, signed by the resident’s cousin, confirmed that he had been in the bedroom when the operative visited and heard him shouting “what is this shit”. He also heard a crash in the living room. He said that he helped the resident after the incident because he was distressed and took photographs of the items that had been thrown and the damage caused. These photographs were supplied to the landlord.
  7. An internal landlord email dated 21 October 2022 stated that the resident had contacted it that day, crying. He said that he had been left shaken by the experience, he could not sleep at night and his depression had got worse.
  8. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 2 November 2022 and said that the complaint was not upheld. It said that it had not received any reports of issues with the boiler or hot water on 23 September 2022 and that a heating engineer had not attended that day. It was, however, able to find an order raised on 23 October 2022 and the operative had attended under job number 276644-1. The operative had arrived on site at 6.45pm and left at 6.54pm. The repairs manager had interviewed the operative that attended that appointment but they denied that an incident had happened. The landlord said that there was no evidence that anyone attended at 9pm on that day so it was unable to investigate further.
  9. In a letter to the landlord dated 5 November 2022, the resident said that a repairs operative did attend out of hours on 23 September 2022. He said that he couldn’t remember anyone coming out on 23 October 2022 and pointed out that if it was a month later the job shouldn’t have had the same reference number as the one attended on 23 September 2022. He said that he had solid evidence that a repairs operative came to his property out of hours on 23 September 2022 to turn on the water and what had happened.
  10. On 9 November 2022 the resident’s doctor wrote a letter saying that the resident had spoken to him about the alleged incident on 23 September 2022. The doctor said that the resident was very tearful and that he had told the doctor that his mental health had deteriorated since the incident.
  11. An internal landlord email dated 13 November 2022 stated that the resident had asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process because he did not agree with the findings. It also said that the resident had asked to be communicated with via post in future as he did not have access to emails.
  12. On 25 November 2022 the landlord wrote a letter to the resident to say that it could not accept the stage 2 escalation because it was unclear why the resident was unhappy with the response. If he wished to pursue the complaint, he would need to contact the landlord to explain the full reason why he was unhappy and what he wanted the landlord to do to put things right.
  13. On 13 January 2023 an internal landlord email said that the resident had called to say that he was upset with the letter he had received. He did not agree with the findings in the response dated 2 November 2022 and his claim for compensation related to emotional stress and damage to his personal property.
  14. On 1 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise him that further to his phone call of 13 January 2023 an independent review of the complaint would be carried out and the resident would be informed of the outcome by 17 February 2023.
  15. The stage 2 complaint response was dated 28 February 2023. It stated that the complaint had been properly investigated. It also said that it was very “difficult to reach a firm conclusion in such circumstances as both parties would have their own recollection of what occurred”. Therefore, the landlord was unable to reach a conclusion on this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It said that no evidence had been found that an operative attended on 23 September 2022, and the previous complaint response had addressed the appointment on 23 October 2022, so it may be that the person that attended was not representing the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42g of the Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings or order compensation for this issue.
  2. The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement due to damaged belongings and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.
  3. The resident told the landlord about the impact of the incident on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the incident and the resident’s mental health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a repair’s operative

  1. The resident expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct at the property. This Service will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves happened or were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available.
  2. This Service has seen no evidence to support that an investigation into the allegation took place. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to give the resident any details relating to an individual’s employment. However, the landlord would be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and reasonable decision on the complaint raised. The complaints handler did not speak to the resident in person about the allegation and notes should have been made regarding the conversation that the repairs manager had with the operative. This lack of evidence regarding the investigation was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s records showed that the resident had physical disabilities, learning difficulties and required reading and writing assistance. The landlord’s safeguarding adult’s policy states that people with these conditions are classed as vulnerable adults. The policy goes on to say that any allegations against staff, contractors or agents made by a vulnerable adult must immediately be referred to the relevant director. This Service has seen no evidence that this allegation was referred to a director which is a failure by the landlord to adhere to its own policy. This Service has also seen no evidence that any safeguarding or other referrals to advocates were made to help support the resident which was a further failure which would have led to the resident not being given access to the support he was entitled to.
  4. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that the repairs manager spoke to the operative that attended the property at 6.45pm on the 23 October 2022. However, the landlord itself has provided a copy of a repairs call summary to this Service to show that job number 276644-1 was completed on 23 September 2022 so this was not the date the incident happened.
  5. This calls into question the overall adequacy and thoroughness of the landlords investigation. The landlord may have written the wrong date in error but the stage 2 complaint response re-confirms it and says that there was no evidence of an operative attending on 23 September 2022. This fundamental error to address such a basic detail, given the availability of held records, is a concern. In addition, the lack of detailed records or a summary of the meeting with the operative would have undermined the resident’s confidence that the landlord had carried out an adequate investigation. This Service has also seen no evidence that the witness statement provided by the resident’s cousin was considered. This left the resident with further questions and added to his distress.
  6. Taking into account all of the above the landlord’s failure to adequately investigate serious allegations regarding the conduct of its operatives towards a vulnerable resident constitutes maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained about the incident that happened when an operative attended job number 276644-1 on 23 September 2022 between 6.45-6.54pm. In his first complaint letter he said that the incident took place at 9pm which was a mistake. However, he told the landlord which job number he was referring to so the landlord should have clarified this with the resident, or referred to its own records, rather than confusing matters by saying that no gas engineer attended the property that day and that no-one attended at 9pm.
  2. The landlord made a mistake in its stage 1 complaint response when it said that job number 276644-1 was attended on 23 October 2022 instead of 23 September 2022. This caused further confusion and the stage 1 response did not therefore respond to the complaint effectively, this caused the resident further distress and time and trouble as he needed to escalate the complaint.
  3. There is evidence that the resident wrote a letter to the landlord on 5 November 2022 explaining why he wanted to escalate the complaint but the landlord did not act on this. An internal email dated 11 November 2022 also confirms that the resident had contacted the landlord to say that he wanted to escalate the complaint. 14 days later the landlord wrote back to him to say that it would not accept the complaint at stage 2 because it was not clear why he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. This was a failing by the landlord as it:
    1. Had already been sent a letter with the reasons why the resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response.
    2. A member of staff had spoken to the resident, so if it was necessary to have specific reasons for the escalation, the staff member should have made sure to obtain these on the call.
    3. The landlord’s complaints policy states “if a resident remains unhappy (after receiving stage 1 response), they can ask for the complaint to be dealt with as a stage 2 formal complaint”. It does not state that it was necessary to give full reasons before a complaint would be escalated.

This caused a delay of nearly 2 months until the complaint was escalated to stage 2, delaying the residents access to the Housing Ombudsman Service as a result. This would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and time and trouble because he had to contact the landlord again.

  1. The landlord told the resident that further to his phone call on 13 January 2023, the complaint would be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 2 complaints will be dealt with within 20 working days unless the person reviewing the case needs to speak to the parties involved and is unable to make contact. The landlord did not make contact with the resident and relied on the evidence from the stage 1 response but it took 33 working days to respond. This was after a delay of nearly 2 months before it accepted the escalation. This left the resident with unanswered questions and was a serious complaint handling failure by the landlord as it failed to adhere to its own policy.
  2. The stage 2 complaint contained factual errors. It said that there was no evidence that an operative attended on 23 September 2022 which was not the case. It made the resident feel unheard because it implied that he had let someone into the property who he should not have done. If further investigation had been carried out the landlord would have realised the errors made in the stage 1 complaint and rectified them. Unfortunately, this opportunity was missed and was a serious complaint handling failure by the landlord which led to further distress for the resident.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses showed no empathy for the resident. It knew that the resident had vulnerabilities and had evidence that the resident had been distressed and crying when he contacted it and his doctor, however it did not address this in its complaint’s responses. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time stated that complaint handlers should be able to act sensitively and fairly, be trained to handle complaints and deal with distressed and upset residents. If this complaint had been handled more sensitively the resident would have felt listened to. The landlord also failed to adhere to its own policy when referring cases such as this to the relevant Director. Therefore, this was a further complaints handling failure by the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure states that before considering an award of compensation the investigating officer must ensure that the complaint is not a legal or insurance issue. The policy goes on to say that if this is the case the risk and insurance team should be contacted immediately for guidance. The resident advised the landlord that his belongings had been damaged due to the landlord’s actions. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord addressed this with the resident or sought advice. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow its own procedure which was a further failing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a repair’s operative.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. To pay the resident directly a total of £800.00 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £300.00 for time and trouble caused to the resident.
      2. £200.00 for inconvenience caused to the resident.
      3. £300.00 for distress caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord must confirm to this Service that the above compensation has been paid within 28 days of this report. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount.
  3. A senior manager must apologise in person to the resident for the poor complaint handling. A discussion should also be had to try to restore the residents confidence in calling the out of hours repairs service in future if needed. Evidence of this to be provided to this Service within 28 days of this report.
  4. Complaints handlers, and any other relevant officers, should be given refresher training regarding the landlords safeguarding adults policy. This is so that relevant staff are clear when to progress such referrals and consistently adhere to the policy regarding notification to a relevant director. This to be completed and evidence provided to this Service within 3 months of the date of this report.
  5. The landlord must review and provide a copy of its procedure for the investigation of allegations about contractual operatives. This is to make sure that allegations are adequately and impartially investigated including the use of any witness information supplied. The procedure should include how the investigation is recorded. This to be completed and evidence provided to this Service within 3 months of the date of this report.