Haringey London Borough Council (202234713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234713

Haringey London Borough Council

25 March 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:
   1. repairs to a radiator.
   2. reports of a pest infestation.
   3. the resident’s request to be rehoused.
   4. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since August 2005. The property is a 1-bedroom second floor flat. The resident is elderly and has limited mobility. The complaints have been made on the resident’s behalf by a representative. For ease of understanding, going forward, the representative is referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
3. On 29 September 2022, the resident reported a leaking radiator. A contractor attended the same day, ordered a part, and made an appointment for 17 October 2022. When the contractor did not attend, the resident emailed the landlord. On 28 November 2022, the resident complained that she had not received a response to her email of 17 October 2022.
4. In its complaint response on 13 December 2022, the landlord apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the radiator and for not responding to the email. It said it had asked the contractor to contact the resident as a matter of urgency.
5. On 19 December 2022, the resident reported a rodent infestation. She asked the landlord to assess the suitability of the flat.
6. The resident contacted her MP on 17 January 2023, and said the landlord had not dealt with the issues she had raised. She said the radiator had not been fixed, the landlord had not got in touch about her request to assess the suitability of the flat, and a pest treatment appointment on 13 January 2023 had not been attended.
7. Following contact from the MP, the landlord arranged to carry out a visit on 31 January 2023, to look at the resident’s housing situation and her vulnerability. It also made a referral to adult social services.
8. On 2 February 2023, the resident told the landlord she wanted to escalate her complaint as the radiator had not been repaired and pest control had not attended.
9. The landlord sent a second stage 1 response on 7 February 2023. It said the radiator repair work was booked in for 21 March 2023. The resident said it was unacceptable to offer a date at the end of March 2023 for a job originally scheduled for September 2022. She wanted a manager to get in touch to assess the conditions in the flat, which she said were posing a health risk.
10. In its final complaint response on 28 March 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in fixing the radiator. On pest control, the landlord said a technician attended on 13 January 2023, but received no answer. Treatment then commenced on 8 February 2023. It apologised for the delay in starting treatment.
11. The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2023. She told the Ombudsman that there continued to be problems with pests, and the leaks had caused mould. She said the flat was not suitable for an elderly person who could not use the stairs and who had a phobia of lifts, and who consequently was effectively housebound. She wanted the landlord to carry out an assessment of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The Ombudsman has noted that several complaints have been raised between June 2022 and October 2023, which relate to pests, leaks, and the suitability of the property. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman will look at the landlord’s actions from when a complaint about pests was made in June 2022 until the resident contacted the Ombudsman in May 2023. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the resident continued to raise concerns about the condition of the property after May 2023 and will consider these concerns.
13. The resident complained that the landlord did not rehouse her when she said her property was not suitable for her needs. In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the assessment of housing needs (which usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman). Therefore, this part of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a radiator

14. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installation of space heating and water heating. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair and maintain the central heating system. The occupancy agreement makes clear it is the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord did not dispute it was responsible for carrying out repairs to the radiator.
15. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it aims to offer an appointment every time a repair is reported. It says it is important to keep an appointment, and it will do its best to arrive at the agreed time. It says if it is running late or needs to reschedule, it will contact the resident as soon as it knows. It says if a part needs to be ordered, or the repair cannot be completed on the first visit, it will offer a new appointment before it leaves, whenever possible. Where it is not possible, it will confirm the next steps with the resident within 10 working days.
16. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a record showing contact with the resident about the central heating system between September 2022 and March 2023.
17. The records confirm a leak was reported on 29 September 2022, and the contractor attended the same day, and identified that a new valve was required. They show the appointment scheduled for 17 October 2022, was cancelled by the contractor due to engineer sickness. The records say an appointment was not rescheduled as the resident did not want to book another date. A call was made to the resident on 25 October 2022 and a message left asking the resident to call back to arrange an appointment. The records say there was no response.
18. The records then show another report about the radiator was made on 24 November2022, and an appointment made for 1 December 2022. The records say an engineer attended at 8:13am on 1 December but could not access the property. At 8.30am, the resident called and said the appointment was too early. The records say the resident did not want to rebook as they wanted to speak to a manager. On 25 January 2023, an appointment was booked for 27 January 2023. An engineer attended and identified that a valve needed to be ordered.
19. On 17 February 2022, records show the resident was given an appointment for 21 February 2022. The contractor attended and reported the wrong valve had been ordered. The correct part was ordered, and another appointment booked for 24 February 2024, when the part was fitted, and the job completed.
20. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s initial response in September 2022 was reasonable and in line with the approach set out in its repairs handbook. It attended the day after the report of a leak, and when it could not fix the leak, it ordered a part and made an appointment.
21. After this time, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not always follow its repairs handbook. The Ombudsman accepts that appointments will need to be cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. In these situations, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take responsibility for arranging another appointment as soon as possible, especially in circumstances where the resident is vulnerable.
22. The records say the resident did not want to arrange another appointment at the time it was cancelled on 17 October 2022. The landlord says it then called the resident on 25 October and left a message. This was reasonable. However, the landlord then failed to follow up the call. The landlord should have been aware that the resident was elderly and vulnerable and made another attempt to contact the resident.
23. When the fault with the radiator was reported again on 24 November 2022, the landlord made an appointment for 1 December 2022. However, the landlord did not confirm this with the resident, and when the contractor arrived, the resident was not prepared for an early morning appointment.
24. Records show that nothing then happened until 25 January 2023, when an appointment was booked for 27 January 2023 and parts were ordered. However, the follow up appointment on 21 February 2023 did not resolve the leak, as incorrect parts had been ordered. The leak was finally resolved on 24 February 2023, which was 5 months after it had been reported.
25. In its final response on 28 March 2023, the landlord apologised for the “extended delay” in fixing a “relatively simple job”. It referred to the resident’s vulnerability, and the delay occurring over winter, which it said was not “good enough”. It went on to say as the radiator was not the only source of heating, the repair had not been classed as urgent, despite the resident’s vulnerable status. However, it said it would review this to improve responsiveness to similar situations in future. It also said there was an opportunity for an earlier appointment, but this was declined by the resident. In March 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that she disputed that she had declined appointments.
26. Although there is a difference of opinion about declined appointments, it is clear from the records provided by the landlord that there were significant gaps in its communication with the resident. The landlord has acknowledged that the repair was relatively simple, and it was aware of the resident’s vulnerability. Despite this, the repair took 5 months to complete. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not follow its own repairs policy, it did not communicate effectively, and did not repair the leak in a reasonable time. Because of this, there was maladministration by the landlord. This left the resident with a leak for an extended period, which caused distress and inconvenience. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £300 for the failure to follow its repairs policy.
27. The Ombudsman has noted that in its final response, the landlord said it would review its responsiveness to reports of radiator faults. The Ombudsman welcomes the landlord’s willingness to learn from this complaint and orders the landlord to provide the findings of its review.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pests

28. Records provided by the landlord show the resident first complained about a missed pest control appointment on 1 June 2022. The landlord investigated the complaint, apologised for the missed appointment, and arranged pest control treatment.
29. On 19 December 2022, the resident reported another rodent infestation. On 17 January 2023, she said she had no response to her report, and on 6 February 2023, she complained she had been living with rodents since 19 December 2022, and this was affecting her health.
30. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a record of contact with the resident about rodent infestations between December 2022 and November 2023.
31. Records confirm a report was made on 19 December 2022 and an appointment made for 13 January 2023. The records say there was no access for this visit. On 7 February, an appointment was arranged, and initial treatment took place on 8 February, with a follow up visit on 23 February. A final visit on 9 March found no rodents present and the treatment was marked as complete.
32. On 23 May 2023, a further report of rodents was made, with an initial visit on 6 June. Follow up visits were scheduled for 20 June and 4 July, however, the technician failed to attend on 4 July due to an “administration error”, and the appointment was rescheduled for 6 July. Further treatment took place on 25 July and 8 August 2023.
33. On 5 October 2023, another report of rodents was made, with treatment taking place on 12 October, 26 October, and 15 November 2023.
34. In March 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that rodents keep coming back, and the latest infestation was in January 2024. She said they are in the entire block and treatment only deals with the problem for a short while. She said the repeated infestations were a serious health concern.
35. The Ombudsman has found that there were some missed appointments and occasions when the landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident, which meant the resident was inconvenienced as she had to chase the landlord. In mitigation, records show the landlord took the reports seriously, visited and placed bait, carried out repeat visits, and surveyed neighbouring properties to establish whether there was a wider problem. In its final response on 28 March 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay to starting treatment and acknowledged the distress caused by living with a rodent infestation. It said the pest team would provide additional visits as required. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this apology and promise of further treatments was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
36. The Ombudsman has noted that there is a repeated problem with rodents, requiring treatment every few months. This suggests an underlying problem with the property. The Ombudsman has also noted that the occupational therapist (OT) carried out an assessment on 23 November 2023, which highlighted a problem with pests, as well as damp and mould. The OT also highlighted the unsuitability of the flat for an elderly vulnerable resident, who was unable to use the stairs or lift. The OT said a large amount of work would be required to make the property habitable, and this would not meet her long-term needs. The OT supported a plan to rehouse the resident.
37. In March 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that because she could not use the stairs or lift, she had been unable to leave the property for 2 years, leaving her housebound. Because of this, the ongoing issue with pests, and considering the OT’s assessment, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord carry out an urgent inspection of the property to assess whether it remains suitable for the vulnerable elderly resident. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the findings of the assessment should be shared with the resident, and the landlord should then provide support and guidance as appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

38. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will provide a response within 10 working days. When the resident is dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, it will send a final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
39. The resident complained on 28 November 2022 about a lack of communication and delays in repairing the radiator. The landlord responded 11 working days later, on 13 December 2022.
40. When the resident escalated her complaint on 2 February 2023, the landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 7 February 2023. The resident escalated her complaint the same day.
41. The landlord’s final response was sent on 28 March 2023. This was 35 working days after the escalation request was made on 7 February 2023. However, the resident originally escalated her complaint on 2 February 2023, and instead of issuing a final response, the landlord issued a second first response.
42. The Ombudsman has found that there was a 15 working day delay in issuing a final response. However, of greater concern, the landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses on 13 December 2022 and 7 February 2023. This suggests a failure in record keeping by the landlord. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £100 for the failure to follow its complaints policy.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. repairs to a radiator
    2. the associated complaint
44. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of a pest infestation.
45. In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

46. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
47. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £300 in recognition of time and trouble caused by delays in repairing the radiator.
    2. £100 in recognition of the failure to respond to the complaint in line with the complaints policy.
48. The landlord is ordered to provide the findings of its review into how it would handle future reports of heating faults involving vulnerable residents.
49. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

50. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord carry out an urgent inspection of the property to assess whether it remains suitable for the vulnerable elderly resident.