Haringey London Borough Council (202218084)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218084

Haringey London Borough Council

30 September 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 delay in repairing the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom end terrace house which she shares with her adult son. The resident suffers from mental health issues and the landlord is aware of her vulnerabilities.
  2. On 2 January 2022, the property suffered extensive fire damage, and the resident was hospitalised because of smoke inhalation. On 14 July 2022, the landlord surveyed the property and noted extensive internal and external fire damage including the roof.
  3. On 14 November 2022, the resident called the Ombudsman and said that she had been discharged from hospital in October 2022 and had been living in temporary accommodation. She said that she had contacted the landlord multiple times to complain because it had not carried out any repairs to the property since the fire. She said that the landlord did not acknowledge her complaint. On the same day, the Ombudsman told the landlord to raise a complaint or provide a stage 1 complaint response.
  4. On 5 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for its delayed response. It explained that the damage to her property was extensive and neither its repair team nor its major works team could manage the scope of the required works. It was engaging with consultants to manage the works. It said that it had experienced supply chain problems which caused delay. It said that contractors were expected to begin work in February/March 2023.
  5. On 16 January 2023, the resident requested for the Ombudsman to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on her behalf. She said that she was unwell and suffered mental health issues. She was unhappy because the timeframe for the works to begin was too long and there was no estimated completion date. She was unhappy that the landlord had not provided compensation for the inconvenience caused to her. On 14 February 2023, the Ombudsman told the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. On 21 April 2023, the resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord had not provided a stage 2 complaint response. On 23 May 2023, the Ombudsman told the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response before 31 May 2023 a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) may be issued.
  7. On 26 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delayed complaint response. It apologised for the delay in the repairs. It said that there had been a shortage of contractors which caused delay. It could not provide a start date for the works, but it expected to complete works by the end of September 2023. It offered compensation of £298 to recognise the lack of communication about the repairs and £50 for the time and trouble caused to her in pursuing a complaint.
  8. On 5 June 2023, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint. She was unhappy that the repairs remained outstanding and said the completion date kept being pushed back. She felt that the compensation offered was not enough. She had been relocated twice when decanted and the current hotel had said she needed to leave that day, and she had nowhere to go because the repair had not been completed.

Events after the internal complaint’s procedure 

  1. Between 30 August 2023 and 19 December 2023, the landlord communicated with a councillor who acted on behalf of the resident. On 19 December 2023, it confirmed that it expected to complete the repairs and give the resident the key before 25 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s delay in repairing the resident’s property.

  1. The resident complained about the delay in repairing the property. Given the extent of the works, this investigation has not focussed on whether the timeframe for the repair was reasonable. This is because the landlord engaged consultants to manage the repair, and delays were largely beyond the landlord’s control. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and provide effective communication, about the progress of repairs to manage the resident’s expectations.
  2. The landlords decant policy states that it would notify the tenant of when the works to their permanent home will be completed and of the date that they will be required to leave the temporary accommodation to return to their (principal) home. It will also keep the tenant informed of progress if the works run over the initial completion date.
  3. The landlord’s vulnerability policy said that vulnerable residents would receive “enhanced support services” and the level of support it provides will be determined by an assessment of the individual’s needs.
  4. The landlord accepted that its communication was poor. In its stage 2 complaint response, on 26 May 2023, it offered £298 to recognise the lack of communication. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In assessing this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. Based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the resident remained in hospital due to mental health issues after the fire for 10 months. She was then decanted to a supported living care provider in October 2022.The landlord failed to notify the resident when it expected the works to be completed when she was decanted. She complained to the Ombudsman on 14 November 2022 that she had raised a complaint because the landlord had not begun repairs, but she had received no correspondence from the landlord acknowledging the complaint. This was inappropriate and caused distress to the resident.
  6. The landlord acknowledged this failing on 5 December 2022, in its stage 1 complaint response and apologised. It provided an estimated start date for the repair. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide a repair update, it should have considered at that point as to how it planned to communicate updates on the repair going forward, especially considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  7. On 14 February 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint because she remained unhappy that she had not been provided with a completion date for the repairs. In its stage 2 complaint response on 26 May 2023, the landlord again accepted that its communication was poor and provided compensation. It apologised that it did not have a start date for the works but advised that it expected to complete the works by September 2023.
  8. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inappropriate. Based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, she only received an update on the repairs through its complaints process, which was delayed. This was unreasonable, especially considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the landlord failed to show due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
  9. There was no evidence that the landlord assessed the resident’s individual needs or provided enhanced support services as outlined in its vulnerability policy. It missed a number of opportunities to implement its vulnerabilities policy and introduce a communication plan with the resident. It is evident that communication remained an issue after the complaint process, when a representative contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident for repair updates.
  10. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s delay in repairing the resident’s property. This is because the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and failed to consider her vulnerabilities. It failed to show due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. Its offer of redress went some way to putting things right, however, it was not sufficient in the circumstances, because it did not consider the impact its lack of communication would have on a vulnerable resident. An order for compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance.
  11. In July 2023, the Housing Ombudsman Service published a special report on the landlord which identified failings in how it provided services to people with vulnerabilities. It is acknowledged that the landlord has since published a Vulnerable Tenants and Leaseholder Policy in July 2024 which includes assessing vulnerability and working with vulnerable residents to agree effective communication. As such, no learning orders have been made in respect of the failings identified in this report.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The Code makes it clear that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain through its complaint’s procedure. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that the landlord was not responding to her complaints. While there is no evidence that the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint before she approached the Ombudsman, there is no reason to doubt the resident. This is because the Ombudsman experienced the same difficulty when escalating the complaint on behalf of the resident.
  3. The landlord delayed in providing its stage 1 complaint response by 5 working days, and its stage 2 complaint response by 50 working days. It only provided its stage 2 complaint response after the Ombudsman indicated that issuing a CHFO would be the next step. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would not have escalated the complaint appropriately but for the intervention of the Ombudsman. This indicates poor complaint handling in practice and was a significant failure for the resident who was requesting updates on her repair while in a decanted property.
  4. The landlord’s complaint investigation is an opportunity to identify failings and put things right for the resident. Although it identified and apologised for its communication failures, it failed to put things right going forward. It should have identified the resident’s vulnerability, assessed her needs, and implemented a communication plan.
  5. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it is reasonable to conclude that the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling, was more detrimental. The landlord’s failings caused more time and trouble as she felt she had to approach the Ombudsman for assistance. Furthermore, the delay in providing a complaint response further exacerbated her distress as she awaited an update on repairs while living in a decanted property.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it delayed in its complaint responses, it failed to use its complaint handling procedure to put things right by identifying her vulnerability and implementing an effective communication plan going forward. These failures caused time and trouble to the resident and heightened the distress caused to her in the circumstances.
  7. This finding is in line with complaint handling failures identified in a special report on the landlord by the Housing Ombudsman Service, published in July 2023. In which, we made recommendations in relation to improving complaint handling, including staff training. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make additional orders as they overlap the expectations of the special report.
  8. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance to reflect the time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s delay in repairing the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £750, compromising:
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience, caused by the failures identified in its delay in repairing the resident’s property.
    2. £250 for the distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    3. If the landlord has already paid £348 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response, this can be deducted from the amount.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.