Haringey London Borough Council (202204866)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204866

Haringey London Borough Council

18 November 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 response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for works carried out at her former property and the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident had a secure tenancy that started on 13 October 2016. The property was a one-bedroom, ground floor flat, which the resident shared with her young child. The landlord was a local authority. The landlord’s records indicate the resident is vulnerable. The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 10 January 2022 the landlord responded to a request from the resident to be reimbursed for expenses incurred at her former property. The landlord said it was unable to reimburse the resident as she had terminated the tenancy, and it was not liable for her purchases.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 6 July 2022. The resident said she had spent approximately £4000 on repairs at her property and wanted the landlord to reimburse the costs she had incurred.
  4. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 8 July 2022 and the landlord then provided a complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 12 July 2022.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2022. It said it understood the complaint to be about leaks, damp and mould at the resident’s property and that the resident had requested compensation. The landlord said it had raised a repair and that it would attend the property on 4 August 2022.
  6. On 19 August 2022 the resident confirmed to this Service that her complaint concerned her previous property, which she no longer lived at. The resident said the landlord had not provided a stage 1 complaint response.
  7. The resident told this Service on 20 September 2022 the landlord had not responded to her request to escalate her complaint. The Ombudsman then asked the landlord to raise a stage 2 complaint.
  8. On 8 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 15 June 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the response. It said the details of the complaint were unclear initially and the information it received led it to believe the complaint was about disrepair at the resident’s current property. The landlord said it had tried unsuccessfully to engage with the resident to find out more about the complaint.
  10. The landlord told the resident as part of its stage 2 complaint response that it was not liable for the resident’s costs and it would not reimburse her.
  11. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s requests to be reimbursed for repairs at her former property and the associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s repair records show a work order was raised on 6 December 2020 for a full rewire at the resident’s property. An internal landlord email sent on 9 December 2020 said the property was ‘in a bad state’ and provided photos of the interior. The email said it was the second or third rewire required at the property. The work was recorded as completed on 20 December 2020.
  2. The evidence indicates that the landlord gained access to the property on 21 April 2021 via forced entry. The resident was staying in temporary accommodation at the time. On 27 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say she had been told the property would be ready on 28 April 2021, but she did not have keys to the property. It is unclear from the evidence how the issue was resolved. The resident was clearly distressed and is reasonable to expect the landlord to have responded to the resident’s emails and to have provided evidence of a timely resolution to the resident’s concerns about keys.
  3. The landlord raised a work order on 1 July 2021 as the resident had reported a leak into the property. The landlord’s records indicate the works were completed the same day.
  4. An internal landlord email on 8 September 2021 said the resident had submitted an invoice for the cost of replacement locks. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord responded to the resident’s request. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have demonstrated that it responded to the resident and to have provided a clear explanation as to whether it would reimburse her or not.
  5. On 11 October 2021 the landlord raised a work order as there was no power at the property. The evidence indicates the resident was decanted to a hotel. The landlord attended as an out of hours emergency and the repair was recorded as completed on 12 October 2021, which was within the landlord’s target response time. A landlord internal email stated that when it attended the property it found all the electrics, fittings and wiring had been stripped out by the resident.
  6. The evidence indicates that on 5 January 2022 the landlord acknowledged that it received receipts for a range of services and purchases from the resident.
  7. On 10 January 2022 the landlord told the resident it was unable to reimburse her purchases, as the resident had terminated the tenancy, and the landlord was not liable for the resident’s costs. The resident responded and said she did not make herself intentionally homeless, and that she had complained and asked for the money to be repaid prior to the tenancy ending.
  8. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to maintain the exterior and structure of the property. The resident is responsible for reporting disrepair or safety issues to the landlord. When a landlord receives a report, it is required to carry out any necessary repairs in accordance with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 4 categories of repairs with differing timeframes. The policy states the landlord will attend emergency repairs with 24 hours, provide an appointment for ‘agreed repairs’ within 28 days, inspect ‘planned’ repairs within 28 days and for ‘other repairs’ adhere to timeframes dependent on the nature of the repair.
  9. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it undertook the repairs reported by the resident within the timeframes stipulated. The landlord’s repair policy does not provide for repairs to be commissioned by a resident and for the landlord to reimburse the resident for these. The landlord acted reasonably in refusing to reimburse the resident.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 6 July 2022 and said her flat had flooded causing her belongings to be lost. The resident said that she and her son were placed in temporary accommodation. The resident said she had done approximately £4000 of repairs to the property before there was another issue and they were decanted to a hotel. The resident said she was asking for the money to be reimbursed and believed she had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP).
  11. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 8 July 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident about her complaint concerning disrepair. The landlord could not identify a logged complaint in its system. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s email to the landlord on 10 January 2022 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, furthermore, the resident believed that she had complained about the issue previously. The landlord acted unreasonably in not considering the resident’s communication to be a complaint or establishing with the resident if she was seeking to raise a complaint.
  12. The landlord provided a complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 12 July 2022 and a stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2022. The landlord’s website states it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 2 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its complaints policy. The landlord’s website does not set out the timeline for the provision of a stage 2 response. In the absence of the landlord’s complaints policy, this investigation uses the timelines for stage 2 responses set out in the Code. This stipulates that requests for a stage 2 escalation must be acknowledged within 5 working days of a complaint being received, and a stage 2 response provided within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
  13. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint after being contacted by this Service. The landlord provided an acknowledgement in 2 working days and provided a stage 1 response in 9 working days, which were within its published response timelines. On 4 August 2022 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it had issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident.
  14. On 19 August 2022 the resident told the landlord the complaint was not about her current property but concerned her request for reimbursement for repair costs she had incurred at her previous property.
  15. The resident contacted this Service on 20 September 2022 and said the landlord had not provided her with a stage 1 response. It was then established that response had been sent to an old email address and the stage 1 response was subsequently resent to the correct address.
  16. On 12 October 2022 the landlord was asked by this Service to respond to the resident’s complaint within 20 working days. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 8 November 2022, which was within the timeline required by this Service.
  17. In its complaint acknowledgement, the landlord sought to clarify the nature of the complaint and to confirm which property it was about. The resident responded on 9 November 2022 and again stated the complaint related to her former address and was about her request to be reimbursed for repair costs she had incurred while living there.
  18. On 17 January 2023 the landlord was asked by this Service to respond to the resident’s complaint by 25 January 2023. The resident confirmed to this Service on 31 January 2023 that the landlord had not responded. The landlord acted unreasonably in not providing a response within the required timeframe.
  19. The landlord told this Service on 17 February 2023 that it had not responded sooner due to staff absence. The landlord said it had contacted the resident who had confirmed there was no disrepair at her current property and the complaint related to her previous property. The landlord said it did not have enough information to properly consider the complaint. It said it had asked the resident to provide receipts, however, she had not done so.
  20. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 15 June 2023. This was nearly 10 months after the resident contacted the landlord to explain its stage 1 response concerned the wrong property. This Service acknowledges the landlord had limited information regarding the complaint and did try to ascertain more detail. It is recognised that the stage 1 response was issued in good faith. However, it is also the case that the landlord took too long to provide a stage 2 response.
  21. In summary, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests to be reimbursed for repairs at her former property and the associated complaint handling. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s initial request in September 2021, to be reimbursed for replacement locks. The landlord acted reasonably when in January 2022, it refused to reimburse the resident for various expenses. However, the landlord failed to clarify if the resident’s subsequent correspondence setting out her dissatisfaction with this decision was a complaint. As a result, it was not until contacted by this Service that a stage 1 complaint was raised. Thereafter, the landlord took too long to provide the resident with a stage 2 response. As a result of these failings, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. This in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for works carried out at her former property and the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to her request to be reimbursed for works carried out at her former property.

The compensation must be paid direct to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.

  1. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. Publish on its website the process for raising a stage 2 complaint and timelines within which it will provide an acknowledgement and a stage 2 response.