Haringey London Borough Council (202333451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333451

Haringey London Borough Council

8 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of roofing repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of window and balcony door repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a top floor flat.
The resident lives at the property with his wife and children.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 November 2022, expressing dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. This included:
1. Repairs required to the roof, to resolve an ongoing issue with water ingress into the property. The resident suggested that the landlord’s failure to repair the roof had resulted in damp in the living room.
2. Repairs to the windows and the balcony door. The resident said the frames had rotted and were letting in the cold. The landlord had inspected them 4 times, had agreed that they needed replacing, but no repairs had been carried out. He expressed concern about the expense of heating the property, only for the heat to escape through the rotten windows.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. The landlord said it had been unable to repair the roof, due to an issue with its scaffolding contractor. However, once this issue had been resolved, it would install the scaffolding and repair the roof. The landlord said it was in the process of procuring contractors to replace the windows and the balcony door. Once it had appointed a contractor, it would contact the resident with a confirmed start date.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 24 February 2023. The resident said:
1. The landlord had not offered any updates in relation to the outstanding repairs to the roof, windows, and the balcony door.
2. The roof had been leaking for nearly a year. As a result, there was a tree growing out of the external wall. The resident was concerned that this would cause significant damage to the property and cause more damp and mould.
3. He was unable to keep the property sufficiently warm due to the rotting windows. He was having to keep the heating on for longer than he could afford. The heavy rain had caused the condition of the windows to deteriorate further, causing water ingress into the property.
4. The landlord “did not care” that his family were living in unsatisfactory conditions. The situation was affecting his mental health and he was finding it more difficult to pay his energy bills.
The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement on 24 February 2023. The landlord said it would provide a full response by 31 March 2023. The landlord contacted the resident several times between 24 February 2023 and 4 July 2023, extending the timescale for issuing the stage 2 response.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 14 July 2023. The landlord apologised for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response, for the poor experience the resident had received, for its delay in managing the outstanding works, and for the impact this had had on the property and the resident’s family. The landlord set out its findings and proposed remedies as follows:
1. The roofing repair:
  1. A works order was raised on 13 March 2022 to repair the roof, which had a target completion date of 12 July 2022.
  2. The landlord attended on 17 May 2022 to complete the repair using a mobile tower. However, the works were halted after deciding it would be safer to access the roof using scaffolding.
  3. The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 12 August 2022, to conduct a scaffold survey. Following this, a works order was raised with its scaffolding contractor, who later refused the job. The landlord said it had initially struggled to find an alternative scaffolding contractor but this had now been resolved.
  4. The landlord said it had scheduled an appointment to repair the roof on 14 August 2023. It would try to bring this date forward if it could.
2. The windows and balcony door repair:
  1. A works order was raised on 16 August 2022 to repair the windows and balcony door, which had a target completion date of 17 December 2022.
  2. The landlord attended the property on 31 August 2022 and 21 September 2022, when some repairs were carried out. However, the repairs were halted and further instructions were sought, after it was established that the window frames and the door were beyond repair. However, the landlord said it did not progress the repair due to an administrative error.
  3. The landlord stated it had since assigned the repair to its contractor, who would make the necessary arrangements to replace the windows and the balcony door.
3. Learning from the complaint, the landlord said:
  1. It now had a reliable scaffolding contractor in place.
  2. It had met and given feedback to relevant personnel.
  3. It would review its policies and would provide additional staff training, to minimise administrative errors arising in the future.
4. Compensation:
  1. The landlord offered £1,037 in compensation, which was broken down as follows:

(1) £500 for time and trouble.

(2) £331 for failures related to the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs, between 12 December 2022 (target completion date) and 28 August 2023 (expected completion date).

(3) £206 in respect of its handling of repairs to the windows and balcony door, between 7 December 2022 (target completion date) and 31 July 2023.

The roof was repaired on 5 September 2023.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 15 July 2024, that the landlord had not yet replaced the windows or the balcony door, it had not provided the resident with any recent updates, and he was unclear when the works would begin. The resident said he had sealed up the bathroom and bedroom windows with silicone to help reduce some of the draught. However, he was struggling to afford the heating bills. His children were having to sleep under several blankets due to the cold. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation to keep in repair, the structure and exterior of the property, such as the roof, walls, and windows. This was in accordance with the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under this Act, the landlord should complete repairs in a reasonable timescale.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords must ensure that the properties they let are fit for human habitation. This means that properties must be safe, healthy, and free from hazards that could cause serious harm. A property that has ongoing issues with damp and mould, or that cannot be adequately heated may not be safe and healthy.
The landlord’s repairs handbook set out the landlord’s expected timescales for completing repairs. The handbook states that the landlord will attend to most day-to-day repairs (otherwise known as “appointed repairs”) within 28 calendar days. For larger jobs, (otherwise known as “planned works”) the landlord will carry out an inspection within 28 calendar days, during which it will tell the resident when the job will be carried out. For example, the handbook categorised roof leaks as appointed repairs, and the renewal of windows as planned works.
The landlord had a compensation policy which set out the circumstances under which the landlord would consider paying compensation. The policy stated that the landlord could makea discretionary payment where there had been service failure or poor service.If repairs werenot carried out within expected timescales, the landlord would pay a £10 one-off payment, plus £2 per day up to 3 weeks. After this time, the landlord would pay between £5 and £10 per week (depending on the urgency of the repair), until the repair had beencompleted. The landlord might also consider awarding between £5 and £10 per week, in recognition of a resident’s time and trouble.
The landlord’s cabinet members agreed a new damp and mould policy in April 2023, which set out the landlord’s approach to responding to damp, mould and condensation in its housing stock. The landlord told its members that:
1. It had a duty to ensure that its housing stock was maintained at least in accordance with the Decent Homes Standard (a minimum quality standard for all social housing in England). This required the landlord to take steps to assess properties for damp and mould problems and, where appropriate, take steps to avoid or minimise the recurrence of damp and mould.
2. Residents living in homes with damp and mould were more likely to suffer from respiratory problems, and other conditions that impact the immune system.
3. The cost-of-living crisis and the impact of fuel poverty was leading to an increased number of residents not being able to either heat or ventilate their homes adequately, which would exacerbate the problem.
The landlord had an affordable energy strategy and a council housing energy action plan, which set out the landlord’s commitment to tackling fuel poverty, through a range of measures.

The landlord’s handling of roofing repairs.

The landlord raised a works order on 15 March 2022, after the resident reported a leak from the flat roof, which was causing damp in the property. The landlord classified the job as planned works and set a target completion date of 12 July 2022. It is unclear why the landlord did not categorise the job as an appointed repair, requiring the repair to be completed in 28 calendar days, in line with its handbook. This would have been a more appropriate timescale within which to remedy the leak, given the resident had referenced damp.
As the landlord classified the job as planned works, in line with procedures, it should have carried out a planned works preliminary inspection within 28 calendar days. If the job was pre-inspected, this has not been evidenced. This may point to an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
It was 9 weeks before the landlord attended the property to complete the repair using a mobile tower. The Ombudsman does not find fault that the works were halted if it was unsafe to access the roof without scaffolding. But it was a further 12 weeks before it carried out a scaffold survey. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have arranged the scaffolding promptly, so it could complete the job.
It is understood that scaffolding was subsequently ordered on 18 August 2022. According to photographs of the scaffold erection and inspection records, it was a further 43 weeks before the scaffolding was installed. It is understood that the initial delay was caused by the landlord’spreferred scaffolding contractor refusingto complete the job. However, further delays arose, after the landlord haddifficulty finding an alternative scaffolding contractor.While the landlord may have had a preferred scaffolding contractor, the landlord ought to have had enoughcontractors available, who could deliver scaffolding services,in the event of such eventualities.
There is little evidence of the landlord keeping the resident adequately updated throughout the history of the repair, or of it considering other courses of action in the interim, to mitigate water ingress and damp. This is troubling and was likely to have contributed to the resident feeling that the landlord “did not care”.
The landlord attempted to put things right at stage 2, by confirming a date to repair the roof, by apologising for its delay in managing the outstanding works, by committing to learning from the complaint, and by offering compensation. However, the landlord did not complete the roof repairs on 14 August 2023 as it had committed, because its roofing contractor was unable to verify the safety of the scaffolding. The Ombudsman is troubled from a health and safety perspective that the scaffolding inspections were not up to date. Ultimately, the landlord’s failure to maintain an adequate scaffolding inspection regime led to further avoidable delay completing the repairs to the roof. It is also of concern that the roof repair was not rescheduled until after the resident chased the landlord.
Overall, there was an inadequate level of urgency and oversight over the completion of the job. The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor, which was likely to have caused the resident continued uncertainty.The repairs to the roof were completed nearly 18 months after the resident first reported the roof leak, and significantly exceeded the landlord’s target completion date by 60 weeks. The impact on the resident and his family over this period included distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. While the landlord offered compensation as redress, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation, which has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The compensation ordered reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident between 12 July 2022 and 5 September 2023, arising from the landlord’s delay to complete identified repairs to the roof. A separate order for compensation is made, which recognises the distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident between 15 March 2022 and 5 September 2023, arising from the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.

The landlord’s handling of window and balcony door repairs.

The landlord raised a works order on 17 January 2020, to inspect and repair the bathroom and bedroom windows, which were not opening. The landlord closed the works order on 20 February 2020. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify what action the landlord took from the evidence seen, if any.
The landlord raised another works order on 4 November 2021, after the resident reported that the bathroom and bedroom windows were not opening and were rotten. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify what action the landlord took from the evidence seen, if any.
The landlord raised another works order on 15 March 2022, after the resident reported the bathroom and bedroom window frames, and the door frame to be broken. It is unclear what action the landlord took from the evidence seen, if any.
The landlord raised another works order on 16 August 2022, after the resident reported that the bathroom and bedroom window frames, and the door frame, had rotted. The landlord stated in the stage 2 response, that the job was given a target date of 7 December 2022. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the works order.
It is not in dispute that the landlord’s operative attended and completed some works on 31 August 2022 and 21 September 2022, although it is unclear what work was carried out. On the 21 September 2022, its operative reported back that the window and door frames were “completely rotten” and required “new joinery”. The works order was referred to a manager for further instruction, marked “please treat as urgent”.
Having marked the instruction urgent, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have acted expediently. But it was nearly 3 months before the landlord added the windows and balcony door to a window replacement list, after being chased by the resident. The landlord told the resident that it would confirm a start date once it had appointed a contractor. However, it did not give the resident an indication of when the works would start. This was unreasonable given the condition of the windows and the resident’s evident anxiety about rising heating costs.
The resident told the landlord in the stage 2 complaint on 24 February 2023, that the windows had deteriorated further, due to heavy rain. The property had also been extremely cold for some months, and he was unable to keep the property satisfactorily warm with the rotting windows. He said that his children deserved to be warm, so he was leaving the heating on longer for than he could really afford.
Given the time that had passed, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have responded by reinspecting the windows to establish their present condition. There is no evidence that it did. The landlord ought to have considered if there were any interim measures it could have taken, pending the window renewal, which would improve the situation for the resident. The landlord should have offered some reassurance about when the windows would be replaced. However, the landlord’s records are silent until 5 April 2023, when the landlord raised a works order with its window contractor to replace 4 windows by 26 April 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s growing concern was inadequate.
The landlord told the resident on 7 April 2023, that its contractor would be in contact to arrange the work. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 April 2023 after the target completion date had passed, to explain that he was still waiting for a start date for the window and door replacement. Although the landlord’s complaint handler requested updates from the service area, updates were not forthcoming, which left the resident uncertain as to how the matter would be resolved. This was unfair. The resident told the landlord on 14 July 2023, that he had lost faith in the landlord ever completing the works.
The landlord accepted in the stage 2 response, that there had been failures in relation to its handling of repairs to the windows and balcony door. The landlord recognised that follow-on works were not progressed in a timely manner due to an administrative error. The nature of the administrative error was not explained. It was encouraging that the landlord sought to learn from the complaint and explained the action it had taken to prevent similar administrative errors arising in the future. While the landlord said it had assigned the job to its contractor, for completeness, it ought to have set a date with its contractor to carry out the works and confirmed this in its response.
At the date of this report, 84 weeks after the target completion date, the windows and balcony door have not been repaired. Despite the learning that the landlord said it had taken, the Ombudsman is troubled that the landlord has not kept the resident updated and is yet to confirm a start date. This is nearly 22 months since the landlord first identified that the windows and balcony door were “completely rotten” and were beyond economic repair. It is unreasonable that the resident has had to resort to sealing up the windows himself with silicone to reduce drafts and retain heat. It is unreasonable that the resident has needed to keep his heating on for longer than was expected, and that his children have had to sleep under several blankets to stay warm, while waiting for the works to be completed.
Overall, there was an inadequate level of urgency and oversight over the completion of the job. The landlord’s communications with the resident were inadequate, which was likely to have caused the resident continued uncertainty. The impact on the resident and his family over this period included distress, inconvenience, as well as increased time and trouble progressing the matter to completion. While the landlord has apologised and offered compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings that have been identified by this investigation.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of windows and balcony door repairs.
As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation, which has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The compensation ordered reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident between 8 December 2022 and the date of this report, arising from the landlord’s delay to complete repairs to the windows and balcony door. A separate order for compensation is made, which recognises the distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident between 21 September 2022 and the date of this report, arising from the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows and inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days of the complaint being submitted, provided all necessary information had been provided. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 20 working days of the complaint being submitted, provided all necessary information had been provided.
In accordance with the Ombudsman’s 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord was permitted to extend the timescale for issuing stage 2 responses by 10 working days. However, any extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. The Code clarified that if an extension was required beyond this, both parties should agree. If agreement could not be reached, the landlord should provide the resident with the Ombudsman’s contact details so the resident could challenge the landlord’s plan for responding and/or the proposed timeliness of its response.
The Code also stated that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. In addition, outstanding actions stated in the landlord’s complaint responses, must be tracked, and actioned promptly, with appropriate updates given to the resident.
It is unclear if the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint, in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued slightly later than the timescales set out in its complaint policy. There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident that it needed more time to issue the complaint response. This was a minor failing.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within expected timescales. However, it did not issue the final response until 96 working days after the complaint was received. It is unclear why the landlord’s service area was unable to provide the information that was needed, so the final response could be issued in a timelier manner. The Ombudsman has been unable therefore, to fully assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s decision to keep extending the final response beyond accepted timescales. However, the Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord proactively reminded the resident of his right to progress his complaint with the Ombudsman at any time if he wished. The landlord also acted fairly, by apologising for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
Since the Code requires landlords to address all points raised in a complaint, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s failure to explicitly acknowledge or act upon the resident’s report about damp at stage 1 to be a failing.
The landlord missed a second opportunity toacknowledge and act upon the resident’s report about damp at stage 2. This is particularly troubling, since the landlord’s new damp and mould policy had recently been brought into operation.Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord’s complaint team ought to have satisfied itself that the service area was responding to the resident’s report about damp and mould, as well as the substantive matters of complaint.
It is noted that the landlord did not raise a damp inspection until after the Ombudsman sent an information request to the landlord. Ultimately, the resident was left to manage the ongoing problems with mould in the property, without support, advice, or intervention from the landlord for longer than was appropriate or reasonable.
Similarly, the Ombudsman is troubled that the landlord did not acknowledge or explicitly address the resident’s concerns at stage 1 or stage 2, about the temperature of the property and the resident’s ability to heat the property with the rising energy costs. Again, this is a failing. Given the resident’s concerns and the landlord’s commitment to tackling fuel poverty, the landlord’s complaint team ought to have satisfied itself that the service area was responding to the resident’s concerns about this, as well as the substantive matters of complaint.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord’s complaint team have been tracking completion of the window and balcony door replacement since issuing the stage 2 response. There is little evidence of any updates being given to the resident. Had the landlord tracked completion of the outstanding actions via its complaints process, it may have been able to secure a timelier resolution for the resident.
While the landlord apologised for its delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint, the landlord failed to address or act upon the resident’s reports about damp, mould, and thermal comfort. The landlord’s inaction adversely affected the resident and his family. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult. The landlord does not dispute that there were issues with its record keeping.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of roofing repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of window and balcony door repairs.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay compensation of £2,060 directly to the resident. This compensation has been determined in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and is broken down as follows:
1. £480 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident between 12 July 2022 and 5 September 2023, arising from the landlord’s delay to complete repairs to the roof.
2. £385 compensation, in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to the resident between 15 March 2022 and 5 September 2023, arising from the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.
3. £460 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident between 8 December 2022 and the date of this report, arising from the landlord’s delay to complete repairs to the windows and balcony door.
4. £485 compensation, in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to the resident between 8 December 2022 and the date of this report, arising from the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and balcony door and inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.
5. £250 compensation, in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, caused to the resident the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must write to the resident to confirm the timescale for replacing the windows and balcony door. All works should be completed within 3 months taking into account manufacturing time. The landlord must explain how it intends to monitor the repair through to a successful resolution and keep the resident updated. The landlord should also update the resident on the actions it has or will take in relation the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord must initiate and complete a senior management review into the issues identified in this case. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the decision. The landlord must bring into its operations any identified improvements within 3 months of the date of this report. This review must include as a minimum:
1. How the landlord ensures that it has enough contractors available to deliver scaffolding services in a timely manner, to avoid similar delays arising in the future, as surfaced in this case.
2. A review of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and the balcony door, after issue of the stage 2 complaint. The landlord must identify the reason for subsequent delays in completing the repairs and identify any learnings.
3. A review of the landlord’s communications in this case. In particular, the landlord must consider the role of its complaint handlers when concerns are raised during the complaint process, which relate to the condition of the property and may present a category 1 hazard.
4. A review of the landlord’s internal guidance on closing complaints, where there are outstanding actions. The landlord must consider how it ensures outstanding matters are tracked through to completion, following closure of a complaint.
The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders, within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.