Haringey London Borough Council (202218734)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218734

Haringey London Borough Council

29 July 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 reports of:
    1. Damp in the communal area and her kitchen.
    2. Noise transference.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Knowledge and information management.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s complaint about noise transference previously within case 202123490 determined on 20 December 2023. Under paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon. Therefore, the complaint about noise transference is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat within a converted period house, which will be referred to as the block. The landlord is a council. The resident has told the landlord that she has a medical condition, and it has recorded this.
  2. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the building in repair. It must also keep communal areas within a block in reasonable repair and regularly decorate these areas. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy, which it sets out within a handbook for residents, categorises repairs as either emergency (attend within 24 hours) or routine (repair within 28 days). It says that it is responsible for communal repairs but does not give a timeframe in which it will complete these. In April 2023 the landlord implemented a new damp and mould policy which sets out its new approach to damp and mould, however, the policy does not refer to damp in communal areas.
  4. Within its complaints policy the landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  5. The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
  6. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
  2. The resident has brought multiple previous complaints to this Service which have been determined. In addition, she has made several further complaints to the landlord about related and unrelated issues before, during and after the present complaint. This report will solely focus on the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp in the communal area and her kitchen. Therefore, the summary of events below only contains events relating to this complaint and is not an exhaustive account of all contact between the resident and the landlord, or of all events which have taken place, during the time relevant to the current complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 26 October 2021 the landlord inspected the communal areas of the block. It photographed areas of water stained and damaged communal walls and said it needed access to the property and the flat above (flat C) to inspect the balconies.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on a date not known. The landlord has not provided a copy of the complaint to this Service. It provided its stage 1 response on 1 June 2022 in which it:
    1. Defined the complaint as about an unresolved longstanding damp issue in the communal area, that it had not progressed work following inspections, and poor communication.
    2. Upheld the complaint and apologised for its service failures and its lack of communication.
    3. Said it had surveyed the block on 12 April 2018 and found defective brickwork pointing and a defective gutter hopper which were allowing water penetration. It had repaired the hopper in 2018 but had not arranged scaffolding for the repointing repair.
    4. Said it could not access the previous survey reports as it had changed contractor but that it would survey again on 8 June 2022. Once it had repaired the issue it would complete cyclical redecoration of the communal area.
    5. Explained how the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  3. On 6 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said its contractor had attended to redecorate the communal area. She said she had told them it needed to be inspected first and they agreed not to redecorate the affected area. She also asked the landlord to consider offering compensation for delay, inconvenience and stress. It replied the following day and apologised. It also said it would consider offering compensation.
  4. The landlord inspected the block on 8 June 2022, took photographs and damp meter readings. Its records say that it identified water ingress from the balcony of flat C to be the cause of damp in the communal area. Between 8 and 9 June 2022 the resident emailed it and said it had told her the balcony and a water gully for flat C needed to be repaired. She also said its contractor told it that the balcony needed to be completely resurfaced in November 2019. She said she had damp on her kitchen wall, which was adjacent to the damp in the communal area. She emailed it again on 24 June 2022 and asked it to explain why the recent survey and previous survey in 2019 had different outcomes, and whether her balcony needed to be resurfaced or just flat C’s.
  5. On 8 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on when the damp was going to be repaired. She also said there was a long history of her neighbour at flat C not allowing access to the landlord. She sent a copy of her email to her local councillor, who forwarded it to the landlord on 14 September 2022 and asked for an update. It acknowledged the enquiry the following day and responded on 29 September 2022. It said it had some issues with access to flat C, and that it needed to pass the balcony repair to a new contractor so could not give a time estimate.
  6. The resident emailed the councillor the same day and said she had told the landlord about the neighbour not allowing access to it. She also said it had not answered her question about the 2 different survey outcomes and she had damp in her kitchen. The councillor raised another enquiry on 30 September 2022, and it replied on 7 October 2022. It said it considered the enquiry as a potential stage 2 complaint, but as there was “not much to investigate at this point” it would wait to hear from the resident. It replied again on 25 October 2022 and said it was still sourcing a new contractor for the balcony works.
  7. On 7 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and sent a photograph of the defective gully, which showed the external wall was wet and moss was growing. She said the damp was affecting her kitchen wall. She asked if it would consider the neighbour not co-operating in giving access as part of her complaint and said it had not responded about her request for compensation. In an internal repair record the following day it confirmed it needed access to flat C for repair works. On 10 November 2022 it replied to the resident and said it would respond by 22 November 2022.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord twice on 11 November 2022 and asked to escalate her complaint. She said it should consider adding a cover to the gully hole to prevent debris blocking the balcony drainage. She reiterated her complaint about damp in the communal area due to flat C’s defective balcony and said there was damp when she moved in. She also said it had caused damp on her kitchen wall.
  9. On 22 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said it could “see that there was a survey inspection previously carried out that identified possible issue with the balconies that could be contributing to the damp” and had “asked that this job is suitably planned in.” It emailed her again on 24 November 2022 and asked if she still wished to raise a stage 2 complaint. She replied the following day and said yes, so that she was within the 6-month period she had to escalate.
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2022 and said its email of 22 November 2022 was a “further response” and she had 6 months from that date to escalate her complaint. She contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 19 December 2022 and asked it to provide a complaint response.
  11. On 23 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said a gas contractor had attended and looked at her boiler. She said he found condensation on the pipes due to damp from the adjoining communal wall. The landlord stated in its repair records on 26 January 2023 that it was going to inspect the damp on 9 February 2023 and asked to make appointments for access with the resident and the neighbour at flat C.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 31 January 2023. It said it would respond within 25 working days. The Ombudsman emailed it on 14 February 2023 and asked it to provide its stage 2 response. On 22 February 2023 the landlord’s repair records say it tried to call the neighbour at flat C 3 times without success. It said it had sent a letter and needed access for the balcony repairs. The Ombudsman emailed it again on 24 February 2023 and asked it to provide its stage 2 response for a third time.
  13. On 4 May 2023 the resident emailed this Service, the councillor and the landlord. She said the landlord had inspected that day and agreed to completely remove flat C’s and the property’s balconies surface to check for underlying cause of damp and then ash felt them. Also to repair the defective gully and to re-plaster and redecorate the communal area. It’s repair records say it raised a repair to ash felt the balconies, but it shows as cancelled without explanation.
  14. The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) against the landlord on 21 May 2023, as it had failed to provide its stage 2 response. It provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 6 June 2023, in which it:
    1. Apologised for its delay in response.
    2. Said it had raised enquiries about the resident’s comments that it had said it needed to re-ash felt her and her neighbour’s balconies, but it had not received a response and it would update her by 20 June 2023.
    3. Explained how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord’s repair records say that it completed a repair to the balcony of flat C on 16 June 2023, by repairing the “filler around balcony”. This was recorded as a follow-on repair, after its records say it attended on 30 May 2023 and said the balcony needed to be re-ash felted.
  2. On 4 January 2024 the resident emailed the Ombudsman, councillor and landlord and said the landlord had inspected that day. She said it found the balcony of flat C to be defective, and the gully to be defective, which was continuing to cause damp in the communal area. It confirmed it needed access to flat C and that after the repairs it needed to repair the communal wall. She also requested that it install a vent in the communal area to help with the damp. She sent a further email on 23 February 2024 and said the landlord had inspected the damp again on 15 February 2024 and came to the same conclusion.
  3. The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 18 June 2024 and said the landlord had completed a temporary repair to the gully that day, but that it needed to do a permanent repair when it re-ash felts the balcony.
  4. The resident has told this Service that at the date of this report there is still damp in the communal area and in her kitchen. She said flat C’s balcony has not been re-ash felted and the internal decoration works have not been completed. She said she also believes her balcony should be re-ash felted based on what the landlord had previously said and its condition. She said she would like the landlord to install a vent in the communal area to help with the damp. She also said it had called her about installing an extractor fan in her kitchen some time ago but had not followed up, and she would like one installed. She is also concerned about cracks on her bathroom ceiling which she would like it to repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the communal area and her kitchen

  1. It is not clear, due to lack of evidence supplied by the landlord, when the issue of damp in the communal area began. The resident has told this Service that it was present when she moved into the property in 2012. Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that there was damp when it inspected in April 2018 and that it had not resolved it which was a failing. Accountability starts at the point the matter is reported not at the point a complaint is made.
  2. The landlord had inspected the block in 2018, 2019, and 2021 but said it could not access all the reports due to a change in contractors, which was a failing. It inspected again on 8 June 2022 and correctly diagnosed the cause and work needed to repair this. By this date the resident had told it the damp was also affecting her kitchen wall. She said its survey conclusion was the same as its survey in 2019 except the previous one recommended her balcony was also re-ash felted, however, a copy of that survey has not been provided to this Service. She asked about the difference, but it failed to answer her question or explain whether or not her balcony also needed repairs.
  3. As no work had started by September 2022 the resident and her councillor started to chase the landlord. Its response was that it had had issues gaining access to flat C, that it needed to change contractor and could not give a time estimate. This response did not set out, as far as it was able due to data protection, what it was going to do to gain access or a timeframe for finding a new contractor both of which were failings. The landlord did not appear to have a plan to repair the damp within a reasonable time which it should have had to comply with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. It also did not take any action to mitigate the damp within the resident’s kitchen which was a further failing.
  4. In response to the resident, in what it called a further stage 1 response, it said there may be an issue with the balcony, and it had asked for a job to be planned in on 22 November 2022. By this time over 5 months had passed since its inspection, which was an unreasonable delay. The tone of the landlord’s response also was poor and did not inspire confidence or manage the resident’s expectations around timeframe which was a further failing. It delayed until May 2023, almost a year since its last inspection, to re-inspect the damp and reach the same conclusion further delaying the repairs.
  5. Within its stage 2 response the landlord failed to provide any update, information, confirmation, or timeframe for the repairs. It also failed to provide any explanation for its delays or offer any compensation for these.
  6. Its repair records say it raised a repair to strip and re-ash felt the balcony of flat C and confirmed this on 30 May 2023, which was before its stage 2 response. However, when it attended having gained access on 16 June 2023, its contractor decided to complete a filler repair instead despite the job description, which was a substantial failing. This did not resolve the issue and it had to inspect again in January 2024 and came to the same conclusion as its previous inspections. Despite this, it decided to inspect again in February 2024, its sixth inspection since 2018. Although it completed a temporary repair to the gully in June 2024, the re-ash felting remains outstanding 2 years after its inspection in 2022 which is an unreasonable and unacceptable delay, in breach of its repairing obligations and policy.
  7. Throughout the complaint the resident has told this Service that the landlord has had difficulty gaining access to flat C. In its records it has stated that it needs access to complete inspections and repairs. However, it has not provided any evidence to confirm that its delays have been caused or affected by a lack of access. It has also not provided any evidence of its efforts to gain access, which it could have done to partially explain its delays.
  8. Overall, there was severe maladministration. The landlord had knowledge of the issue with damp in the communal area from at least 2018, and knowledge of damp in the resident’s kitchen from at least June 2022 and has not resolved this. It has failed to act upon its inspections or book in sufficient repairs to resolve the issue and has failed to carry out any works to mitigate the effects of damp inside the property. If delays were caused by difficulty in gaining access to flat C, the landlord has failed to evidence this or what action it has taken to try to gain access. The damp, and duration it has been occurring, have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, along with a substantial amount of time in trying to have the repairs completed. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has failed to provide a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It responded on 1 June 2022 and correctly admitted and accepted its failings, and apologised for these, which was positive. It also proposed a new inspection which was solution focused. However, it failed to consider offering any redress which it should have done.
  2. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 November 2022 the landlord failed to do this, in breach of its complaints policy and paragraph 5.10 of the Code. Instead, it provided what it called an updated stage 1 response which is not provided for in its policy. It failed to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint after she again asked to escalate her complaint. Even after the Ombudsman asked it to provide a stage 2 response on 19 December 2022, it failed to acknowledge the complaint until 31 January 2023, in which it gave an incorrect timeframe (contrary to its policy) in which it would respond.
  3. Following the landlord’s continued failure to provide its stage 2 response, despite 2 further requests from this Service, the Ombudsman issued a CHFO. This demonstrates its unacceptable failing in responding to the stage 2 complaint, in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. During this time, it could have requested an extension of time, with good reason, but it failed to do so. It finally provided its stage 2 response 141 working days after the complaint was escalated, against a policy timeframe of 20 working days.
  4. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly apologised for the delay. However, it failed to provide an explanation, offer any remedy, or say how it would prevent similar delays in future. It failed to demonstrate the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. There was severe maladministration, which caused additional and unnecessary distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing her complaint. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  2. Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. Despite having been asked, as part of the preparation of this case, to supply all correspondence relating to the complaint, a large number of emails, and the resident’s stage 1 complaint, have not been supplied by it. In addition, it has failed to provide inspection reports and said it could not access previous records due to a change in contractor.
  3. The lack of evidence supplied demonstrates that the landlord’s record keeping needs improvement to enable it to more effectively resolve substantive issues and accurately respond to complaints. There was maladministration.

Determination (decision) 

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the communal area and her kitchen.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. There was severe maladministration in its handling of the damp as the landlord failed to repair the issue over at least a 6-year period. It completed multiple inspections but did not arrange the repairs needed. When it did carry out a repair it was contrary to what it needed to do and so failed to resolve the damp. It also failed in its communications with the resident about the repairs.
  2. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as it failed to escalate the complaint when asked to do so. It failed to provide a stage 2 response within its policy timeframe and delayed even after 3 requests and a CHFO from this Service. It failed to demonstrate the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  3. There was maladministration as the landlord either failed to retain and or failed to provide copies of all the evidence requested by this Service. The lack of management of information was also demonstrated in how the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology, from the chief executive, for the failures detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £1,500 made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures in handling her reports of damp.
      2. £500 for the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Book in a date to strip and re-ash felt the balcony of flat C. Following this work, it is to redecorate the communal area and affected wall in the resident’s kitchen. If it is unable to do this within this timeframe due to not getting access to flat C, it is to provide evidence of its attempts and actions to try to achieve this, and what further attempts it will make.
    4. Confirm to the resident whether her balcony also needs to be stripped and re-ash felted, and if it does, to book in these works.
    5. Carry out a mould wash if required and assess whether an extractor fan could be installed in the resident’s kitchen. If one can, the landlord is to book this in with the resident.
    6. Consider installing a ventilation vent in the communal area and explain whether this would assist in preventing or reducing damp.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management or undertake a new self-assessment if it has not done so in the last 12 months.
  3. The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included “a culture of apathy… a distinct lack of ownership, accountability, and intrinsic motivation when handling complaints. Where shortfalls are identified, there is no evidence of learning to prevent these failings reoccurring, and little evidence of contrition or a resolution-focused approach to complaints handling”.
  2. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before the time the report was published, no orders or recommendations about complaint handling have been made in addition to those made within the special report.