Haringey London Borough Council (202302608)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302608

Haringey London Borough Council

7 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of water ingress into the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The freeholder is the landlord – a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The leaseholder does not live in the property. It is rented to tenants.
On 17 May 2021, the resident reported water ingress into his kitchen from the flat roof/balcony of the property above. On 25 May 2021, he reported water ingress into the kitchen lights from the same leak.
On 9 November 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said the water ingress was ongoing and causing significant internal damage to his property. He explained he had previously let the property, but his tenants had left due to the water ingress. As such, he was losing rental income each month.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022. It said:
1. A roofer attended the property on 29 June 2021 and requested for a surveyor to examine the balcony.
2. A surveyor attended on 27 May 2022 and identified works to resolve the water ingress.
3. It initially scheduled remedial works for 15 December 2022. However, the works would not take place until the landlord procured a new roofing contractor.
4. The resident could contact the landlord’s insurance team to make a claim once it had resolved the roofing issue.
The resident made a second complaint on 2 February 2023. He said:
1. The roof had been leaking since May 2021 and was still ongoing.
2. The landlord had made an appointment to attend his property on 31 January 2023 to remove the kitchen ceiling and agree repairs. He waited in all day, and no-one attended.
3. The landlord promised him a call-back from a manager to discuss the situation, but no one contacted him.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 February 2023 under complaint reference LBH/13623623. It said:
1. The appointment did not go ahead on 31 January 2023 due to an administrative error.
2. It apologised for the poor communication and inconvenience caused.
3. A manager called the resident on 15 February 2023 to apologise.
4. Roofers attended the resident’s property on 16 February 2023. It needed scaffolding to complete the repairs. Its roofing manager would start to co-ordinate the works.
5. It recognised the resident reported the leak in May 2021 and it failed to progress the repairs.
6. It recommended leaseholders take out contents insurance to cover their personal items. It also provided the details of its insurance department.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 27 February 2023. He said the landlord failed to contact him to progress the repairs.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response in May 2023. This was about structural repairs to the property, under complaint reference LBH/13383022. The Ombudsman has not seen the initial complaint, structural survey, or stage 1 response for this case.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023, reference LBH/13623623. It said:
1. It apologised for the severe delay issuing its final complaint response.
2. The landlord assigned the repairs to a contractor. Unfortunately, there were delays with the contractor and the landlord did not update the resident.
3. The remedial works were poorly managed.
4. The contractor started pointing works on 13 September 2023.
5. It awarded the resident £500 compensation for the impact caused, and £150 for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the complaint.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The subcontractor marked the external works as complete on 28 September 2023.
Following the involvement of this Service, the landlord made an appointment to inspect the downpipe on 12 July 2024 and an operational team leader attended the property on 19 July 2024.
The landlord informed this Service that following its inspection, it had scheduled further work to the external pointing. It also agreed internal remediation works.

Assessment and findings

Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman made several recommendations to this landlord within our special report published in July 2023 concerning complaint handling, record keeping, leaseholders, and repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore not made recommendations in this report around these aspects of service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account.

Scope of investigation

The resident said the landlord’s delay in resolving the water ingress caused their tenant to end their tenancy, leading to a financial loss. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or award damages. A claim for loss of rent is something better suited for consideration by an insurer via a landlord insurance policy or rent guarantee policy. If this type of insurance was not held by the resident in his capacity as a landlord, he would need to seek independent or legal advice to see if there are other options available to him, such as making a claim on the landlord’s own insurance.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress into the property

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord must keep the structure of the property in a good state of repair, including the roof, brickwork, and guttering.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs (including major water leaks) – completed within 24 hours.
2. Agreed appointment (works that the landlord can complete in a single visit) – completed within 28 days.
3. Planned repairs – initial inspection within 28 days. At the inspection, the landlord will tell the resident when it will complete the work.
The landlord’s repair policy recommends that residents take out contents insurance to cover damage to their possessions. It further explains that to claim against the landlord for loss or damage, a resident would need to demonstrate that the landlord’s negligence caused the damage.
Where a landlord receives a report of water ingress, it has an obligation to investigate it within a reasonable timeframe and to complete any necessary repairs. The Ombudsman would also expect it to keep a resident informed of its actions and the outcome.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as water ingress. It can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset, especially where more than one property may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure. A landlord must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible.
Within this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord proactively managed investigations into the water ingress at the earliest opportunity.
As part of this investigation, this Service asked the landlord for its records, such as a copy of the resident’s reports of the water ingress, repair logs, copies of any surveys or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, an explanation of any work carried out, confirmation that the issue had been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. The landlord provided some of this information, but this does not fully evidence its decision making at the time. For example, it is not clear what actions were taken following each appointment, with unreasonable delays in-between recorded actions. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided more detailed records and has not evidenced active management of the repairs.
The landlord’s limited records in relation to investigations and repairs provides little confidence that any meaningful action was taken for some time after the resident’s initial report of water ingress. The records we have do not indicate a detailed level of understanding of the issue affecting the resident, or any urgency in completing the required repairs. While the Ombudsman recognises that various contractors attended the property, the landlord’s records do not explain what works were done on each occasion or how the resident’s expectations were managed. There is no evidence of the landlord tracking the progress of the repair early on or anyone having responsibility to ensure the repairs were followed through to completion.
The landlord told this Service that, “it was not clear at the time of this investigation what exactly are the outstanding repairs associated with the original leak”. It is a serious concern that the landlord was unable to clarify its position using its own records. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property, enable it to monitor outstanding repairs, and help it to provide precise information to residents. Landlord and contractor staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. In this case, there was a significant failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
Neither party disputes that the resident initially reported water ingress to the landlord in May 2021. There is little evidence that the landlord gave the resident’s concerns the appropriate attention in the circumstances. The resident contacted it several times about the ongoing matter, but a repair was not undertaken until September 2023 – more than 2 years later. In the Ombudsman’s view, this delay was excessive, unreasonable and without good reason. The landlord missed opportunities to proactively deal with the resident’s concerns or have oversight of its contractors. This demonstrates the landlord did not take the resident’s reports seriously or treat him fairly.
A report provided by the landlord from July 2024 states the dining/living room ceiling was ready to collapse with clear water damage. It is a significant failing that the landlord did not recognise or address this at the earliest opportunity and this work remained outstanding for a significant period after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process.
From the information provided, it is evident the landlord did not update the resident regularly and he spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates and attempting to drive the repairs forward. The Ombudsman finds the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
Overall, the main failures within this case were avoidable delays in stopping the water ingress, poor communication, and ineffective repair management. The landlord offered £500 compensation through its internal complaint procedure, but we do not think this is sufficient given the extent of the delays. Moreover, the resident had previously reported to the landlord that he was losing rental income as a result. Considering the evidence available and the cumulative impact on the resident, this constitutes a finding of maladministration.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £1,150 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s consideration of cases that identify significant and protracted failures of service that have a substantial impact on the resident, as per our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
The resident raised a second complaint about the leak on 2 February 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 February 2023. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 February 2023. The stage 2 response to complaint LBH/13623623 was issued 142 working days later. The Ombudsman finds the landlord kept this complaint open for an excessive period. It also failed to provide meaningful updates to the resident.
The stage 2 response was the landlord’s opportunity to put matters right for the resident. The Code states that, when responding to a complaint, the “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” However, the landlord failed to do this, with repairs outstanding as of July 2024. This shows a lack of oversight and complaints management.
Considering the resident had previously made a complaint about the landlord’s response to the leak in November 2022, it was already on notice that there was a problem it needed to rectify. Its failure to resolve the initial complaint caused the resident further time and trouble as he had to make a second complaint and seek support from this Service. This demonstrates substandard complaint handling and a lack of ownership.
Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling, communication and repairs provision.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s view, this sum was inadequate to reflect the impact on the resident over a significant period.
Overall, the Ombudsman concludes there were several failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the resident’s concerns but instead compounded the detriment caused. Due to the cumulative failings identified, the length of time this occurred for, and the level of detriment experienced by the resident, this constitutes maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident £1,500 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer and is comprised of:
  1. £1,150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue.
  2. £350 for the impact of the complaint handling failures identified.
3. Consider whether any additional compensation is due to reflect the delay in completing repairs due to the water ingress. It should consider from the date of its stage 2 response (19 September 2023) until the date it completes the outstanding works. It must write to the resident to confirm its decision.
4. Write to the resident to set out a schedule of works for the outstanding repairs following the water ingress. The landlord must send a copy of this to the Ombudsman.
5. The landlord must give the resident a point of contact who will oversee the works to completion and pro-actively give him updates.
6. Write to the resident to explain any repairs it is not willing to complete in relation to the water ingress (if applicable), with the reasons for its decision.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.