Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Haringey London Borough Council (202314617)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314617

Haringey London Borough Council

13 March 2025

 

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 a refund request for fire doors that it did not install.

Background

  1. The resident has a leasehold with the landlord for a first-floor flat, which began on 10 July 1989. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
  2. On 21 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about it not refunding £2,087.74 paid on 11 April 2019 for fire doors that it did not install. The resident:
    1. Said she had expected a refund by 31 October 2021 and been emailing since September 2022.
    2. Disputed that the landlord should deduct any council tax charges from the refund amount.
    3. Said the landlord confirmed by email dated 9 June 2023 that it had processed a refund request for its finance team to approve.
    4. Asked the landlord to:
      1. Explain its ‘appalling behaviour’.
      2. Clarify her council tax position.
      3. Apologise.
    5. Consider how it would correct its ‘terrible behaviour’ and pay something towards the interest she could have earned on the money as well as the ‘incredible waste of time’ chasing the refund.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 27 June 2023. The landlord:
    1. Said it must follow a procedure before issuing a refund when it receives a refund request.
    2. Said its process was to check all accounts associated with the leaseholder/address, such as council tax and Housing Benefit accounts. It said all accounts need to have a zero balance, otherwise it deducts arrears from refund amount.
    3. Apologised for the delay in processing the refund.
    4. Said there was no interest on the refund as it did not invest money from leaseholders or service users.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 28 June 2023. In summary, the resident said:
    1. The landlord’s reply did not show it had read or listened to her issues.
    2. The landlord had still not refunded £2,087.74 paid over 4 years prior for fire doors that it did not install.
    3. She would have liked to have invested or spent the £2,087.74 but could not do this because the landlord had held onto it since 11 April 2019.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 3 July 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged that the tone of its stage 1 response lacked empathy and an apology, and that it failed to acknowledge the core issues of complaint.
    2. Confirmed its Homeownership Team had submitted a refund request on 2 May 2023. It said £2,510 should be with the resident by the end of the week.
    3. Acknowledged that it failed to address the resident’s concerns that she had been unable to invest the money to earn interest. The landlord said it would use this as an opportunity to learn and improve its service.
    4. Confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if they remained unhappy.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 July 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 10 June 2024.

Post internal complaints process

  1. We are aware that the landlord contacted the resident to offer an apology and £350 compensation. The landlord said this was to recognise that it took too long to provide a refund as well as the impact that this had due to the time that passed and the resident’s efforts to pursue this.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from September 2022, which is when the resident requested a refund of monies paid for fire-safety works. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 21 July 2023. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
  2. This investigation does not assess whether the landlord should have provided the resident with a refund of monies paid, as this issue is not contested. The agreement was already in place that the landlord would refund £2,087.74. This investigation therefore assesses the landlord’s provision of the refund.

Landlord’s handling of a refund request for fire doors that it did not install

  1. The landlord does not dispute there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. There were several contacts before the resident complained to the landlord:
    1. The landlord initially failed to complete fire-safety works for which the resident paid £2,087.74 in April 2019.
    2. On 8 June 2021, the landlord wrote to confirm it would refund any monies paid towards fire-safety works it had not completed.
    3. On 8 September 2021, the landlord wrote to explain that the refund was taking longer than expected but the resident should receive this by 31 October 2021.
  3. In September 2022, the resident asked for a refund. The landlord’s failure to provide a refund prompted the resident to raise a complaint on 21 June 2023, causing inconvenience. While the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint, it did issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being made. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint did not unduly impact the resident.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained that it had a process to follow before issuing a refund and apologised for the delay. It acknowledged the resident’s request that it pay her compensation for interest she could have earned if she had been able to invest the money. It said it would not pay interest due to not investing the money and, therefore, not making any interest. We consider that the landlord missed an opportunity to consider compensating the resident for the length of time it had the money and that its reply lacked empathy towards the resident’s concerns. That it also failed to specify how it would refund the resident was a further failing.
  5. Further, the advice given by the landlord in its stage 1 response as to how it would provide the refund was not in accordance with its Housing Compensation Policy and Procedure. This is because while clause 1.18 states it will offset compensation against any outstanding debts, clause 1.19 states it will directly reimburse specific additional costs incurred by a leaseholder and not offset them against any outstanding debts. As this was not compensation, but a refund, the landlord should have confirmed it would pay this to the resident directly. That it did not do so is a failing.
  6. The resident stated the landlord did not consider the issues she raised and reiterated that she would have liked to have invested the £2,087.74 it had held onto since 11 April 2019. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the service received. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its stage 1 response lacked empathy and failed to address the resident’s concerns about not being able to invest the money. However, the landlord confirmed the resident would receive a refund by the end of the week, which did not happen and it again failed to consider the resident’s request for compensation to recognise that she had been unable to financially benefit from investing the money. These issues caused the resident to bring the complaint for us to investigate causing her further inconvenience, time and trouble.
  7. On 5 March 2025, the landlord told us it had refunded the money for fire-safety works to the resident’s service charges account in August 2023. Although the refund could be used towards any service charges raised, clause 1.19 of the landlord’s Housing Compensation Policy and Procedure confirms it should have refunded the money directly to the resident because it was not compensation. That it did not comply with its own policy is a failing. Therefore, an order for remedy has been made to ensure the landlords staff are familiar with the contents of its Housing Compensation Policy and Procedure.
  8. Despite the resident requesting a refund in September 2022, the landlord failed to pay the monies back until August 2023, which was almost a year later. It also failed to refund the money directly to the resident, as it was required to under clause 1.19 of its Housing Compensation Policy and Procedure. The landlord had several opportunities to provide a refund but failed to do so until after the resident had exhausted its complaint process in July 2023. These errors, plus the length of time taken to issue the refund, likely frustrated and inconvenienced the resident.
  9. While the landlord did ultimately acknowledge that its complaint responses were unclear about which account it would credit the refund onto and said it would offer an apology and £350 compensation to recognise its failings. That it only did so when replying to our request for information on 26 July 2024 and therefore over a year after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure is a further failing. The offer of £350 falls within the landlord’s compensation category in which it accepts full responsibility for a ‘serious failure in service standards’. However, it has not prevented a finding of maladministration as it was unreasonable that the landlord did not fully recognise the appropriate level of redress to address these failings until significantly after the conclusion of the complaint process.
  10. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its Housing Compensation Policy and Procedure throughout the complaints process. The resident experienced a significant delay in receiving the refund – more than a year after requesting this – and the landlord then issued the refund incorrectly. The landlord also did not offer any redress until contacted by our Service. Therefore this amounts to maladministration and the landlord will be ordered to pay the £350 it offered to the resident if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s failure to refund monies paid for fire doors that it did not install.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
    2. Pay £350 compensation for its failings, if it has not already done so.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its a review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are aware of what its Housing Compensation Policy and Procedure says and respond to refund requests accordingly.
  3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframes set out above.