Haringey London Borough Council (202222316)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222316

Haringey London Borough Council

26 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 reports of:
    1. Repair issues in the property, including damp and mould.
    2. A mice infestation in the property.
    3. Overcrowding and her concerns about the landlord’s transfer list.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould on the bedroom ceiling on 28 October 2021. On 23 May 2022 the resident reported there were mice in the property. She said Environmental Health had attended and determined a new kitchen was required as the flooring was allowing mice to enter. She then reported a blockage in the bath on 5 December 2022 and a leak in the attic on 24 January 2023.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 19 December 2022 due to overcrowding and a pest infestation in the property. The resident contacted the Service on 23 December 2022 and said she wanted to raise a further complaint as the property was overcrowded and unsanitary. She said there were kitchen repair issues, a mice infestation, damp and mould in the bedroom, the attic was leaking, and the bathroom pipe system did not work. The Service then contacted the landlord on 25 January 2023 and told it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2023. It stated a surveyor inspected the property on 7 June 2022. The surveyor checked for structural issues and found “normal movement allowance” and no damp issues. The surveyor also explained to the resident that the readily available food sources were attracting rodents. It said an appointment was scheduled for 21 February 2023 to complete repairs to the bath. It had assessed the resident’s application for overcrowding and confirmed she required an extra bedroom and she had been placed in band B and C. It advised the resident to provide any additional information to support her application, including medical evidence, and signposted her to alternative options.
  5. Following contact from the resident, the Service told the landlord on 16 February 2023 to issue a stage 2 response. The resident did not provide any specific reasons for her decision to escalate the complaint.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023.
    1. It reiterated its initial response regarding the resident’s report of overcrowding.
    2. A surveyor attended on 7 June 2022, it had completed 6 pest control treatments, and had raised repairs to block holes in the property, replace the skirting boards, and complete proofing works. It had also instructed a CCTV drain survey. It apologised for failing to follow-up her reports in a reasonable timeframe.
    3. No damp issues were found on the surveyor’s visit on 7 June 2022.
    4. On 21 February 2023 it rectified the issues with the bath and water seeping between the sink and the wall in the bathroom.
    5. It attempted to inspect the skirting boards and the reported damp and mould on 29 March 2023, but was unable to gain access. It asked the resident to contact it to rearrange the appointment.
    6. It signposted the resident to resources to support with her mental health.
    7. It was unable to offer alternative accommodation but would ensure any issues with pests and damp were resolved.
  7. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, she said she was dissatisfied as the pest issues were ongoing as the landlord had not completed court-ordered works. She said the other repair issues had not been subject to a court judgement or decision. She said the property is unsecure, cracks and openings are causing a breeze, the bath constantly blocks, and there are issues with the hot water. She said the damp and mould issues have been resolved.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation in the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”. The landlord has provided evidence that a court date was set for 17 January 2024 regarding the mice infestation. The resident therefore had the opportunity to present the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings, so it will not be considered within the investigation. For clarity, this includes the kitchen repair works, as they were deemed necessary for proofing the property.
  4. The resident advised the Service that the landlord has not completed court ordered repairs. The Ombudsman cannot issue a binding decision about a dispute concerning the landlord’s compliance with court ordered repairs, as this is an issue for the court due to being a legal matter. If the resident remains dissatisfied, it is recommended that she refers the issue back to the court, as it falls properly within their remit. As a result, this is not a complaint the Ombudsman can investigate.
  5. The resident also raised concerns about overcrowding in the property and the landlord’s transfer list. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body”. The assessment of housing needs and the application of a council’s housing allocation policy, concerns its actions as a local authority. As a result, such complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO for assistance with her complaint about this matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised that the resident initially reported damp and mould on 28 October 2021. However, there is no evidence she pursued the issue until she raised a complaint with the Ombudsman on 23 December 2022. In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As a result, although her initial report has been included for historical context, the landlord’s handling of it will not be assessed within the report.
  2. In recent correspondence with the Service, the resident reported issues with hot water and said there are cracks which make the property unsecure. There is no evidence that the resident raised such concerns within her complaint to the landlord. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of repair issues in the property, including damp and mould

  1. The tenancy handbook states the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, damp proof course, and bathroom fixtures and fittings including the bath. Its repairs policy states it will complete agreed appointments within 28 days and inspect planned repairs within 28 days. It also provides advice on reducing condensation to prevent damp and mould.
  2. It is noted that the resident previously reported damp and mould on the bedroom ceiling on 28 October 2021. As the scope of the investigation does not include this period due to the time elapsed, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately at the time of the resident’s initial report. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said a surveyor inspected the property on 7 June 2022 and said that there were no damp issues and there was “only normal movement allowance” in relation to the resident’s concerns about the structure of the property.
  3. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the survey report. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, it is of particular concern that the landlord has not provided key information that it relied upon in its complaint investigation. 
  4. There is no evidence the resident pursued the issue with damp and mould until December 2022. In response, the landlord cited the survey from June 2022 and reiterated it found no evidence of damp and mould. This was unreasonable as due to the elapsed 6-month period it was likely that the property condition had changed. It should not have relied on an outdated report to dismiss her concerns and assert that there were no damp issues in the property. The landlord should have arranged a second inspection to confirm the current property condition and establish whether any repairs were required. As it failed to do so, there was a missed opportunity to resolve the damp and mould at an earlier date.
  5. On 10 March 2023, the landlord raised a work order to inspect for damp and mould. In its stage 2 response, it said it had attempted to visit on 29 March 2023, but it was unable to gain access. The landlord has not provided any correspondence records to confirm the resident was informed of the appointment. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that it advised the resident how to rebook the appointment.
  6. The resident has since advised the Service that the damp and mould issues have been resolved. It is unclear when the repairs were completed, as the landlord has not provided any relevant repair records, but it is evident the landlord exceeded its repair timeframe.
  7. The resident reported the bath was blocked 4 times between 25 August 2022 and 7 February 2023. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended on 5 December 2022, 16 January 2023, and 21 February 2023. It is recognised that it can take numerous appointments to put in place a full and lasting repair. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not attend for over 3 months following the resident’s initial report. This prolonged the time taken to repair the issue in full and caused additional inconvenience, time, and effort to the resident. The landlord did not address any reasons for the delay in its complaint response. As the resident has reported issues with the bath are ongoing, the landlord should contact her and arrange a further appointment.
  8. It is evident that the landlord has not acted in line with its repairs policy. It has not demonstrated it took reasonable steps to resolve the damp and mould in the bedroom, and it exceeded a reasonable timeframe to attend the resident’s initial report that the bath was blocked. The landlord failed to address its failings in its complaint response, so the issue remains unresolved. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate when the landlord has not acknowledged its failings or attempted to put things right. In light of the identified failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It states if the resident remains dissatisfied it will complete a stage 2 review response. The policy does not outline the timeframe for responding to stage 2 complaints, but in line with the Service’s complaint handling code, it should issue a response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident asked how to raise a complaint on 19 December 2022, which the landlord failed to acknowledge. The Service subsequently contacted the landlord on 20 January 2023, following correspondence from the resident, and told it to respond to the complaint. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 8 February 2023, exceeding its response time by 24 working days.
  3. The Service told the landlord to escalate the complaint on 16 February 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. This exceeded the response timeframe expected by the Ombudsman by 11 working days. While the delay at stage 2 was not necessarily excessive, the cumulative impact of the delays meant it took over 3 months for the complaint to exhaust the landlord’s complaint process. This would have delayed the resident in being able to exercise her right to bring her complaint to the Service for independent review. She also experienced additional time and effort pursuing the complaint.
  4. In her complaint to the Service, the resident raised concerns about the attic leaking, which was not addressed in the landlord’s response. It is recognised that in the Ombudsman’s correspondence with the landlord, we defined the complaint as “reports of repair issues, and structural issues within the property”. The landlord would therefore not necessarily have been aware the attic leaking formed part of the complaint. However, in line with the Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord is expected to seek clarification from the resident, if any aspect of the complaint is unclear. Therefore, the landlord should have confirmed for itself which repair issues she was dissatisfied with, before issuing its response to ensure it addressed all points raised within the resident’s complaint.
  5. The landlord did not address the delays or identify that it had not responded to all issues raised by the resident within its complaint response. As a result, it has not taken steps to learn from the complaint or put things right. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm whether she remains dissatisfied with its handling of her reports of the attic leaking and raise a new complaint if necessary. Compensation is also warranted as the landlord has not taken steps to offer redress. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £150 in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, as it did not acknowledge its failings or attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property, including damp and mould. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation in the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overcrowding and her concerns about the landlord’s transfer list is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £350 due to the failings identified in its handling of the repairs. 
    2. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident and confirm whether she wants to raise a new complaint about its handling of the attic leak. It should provide a copy of the correspondence to the Service and confirm whether it has raised a new complaint. 
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has adhered to the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident, confirm whether the issues with the bath have recurred, and complete any additional necessary repairs.
  2. The landlord should review its record handling practices and the Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (available on our website), to ensure it retains clear records relating to repairs.